TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: Ijtaba on September 11, 2018, 02:45:19 PM
-
Salaam,
http://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/
In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?
In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
-
Good question. However today most Sunnis do not see Muawiyah to be in red light. So the answers will be based on that.
-
Salaam,
http://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/
In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?
The first question need to answer first is whether Ali called other Sahabas to join him in battle against Muawiyya. Was there any?
-
The first question need to answer first is whether Ali called other Sahabas to join him in battle against Muawiyya. Was there any?
Interesting.
Well I guess Imam Ali (a.s) was too busy in calling assassins of Uthman to join him (a.s) in his (a.s) battle against Muawiya that he (a.s) couldn't get time to call Sahabas to join his (a.s) forces.
However he (a.s) did call Usamah bin Zayd to join him (a.s) but the latter choose to stay aloof from the Fitnah and thus refused to help the ruler of his time.
Now, I like to ask one thing: What was the duty of Sahabas at the time when their Ruler was waging war against people who were refusing to pledge allegiance (due to any reason e.g. condition of punishing assassins of Uthman) to the legitimate ruler and thus causing Fitna in Muslim Ummah?
-
Interesting.
Well I guess Imam Ali (a.s) was too busy in calling assassins of Uthman to join him (a.s) in his (a.s) battle against Muawiya that he (a.s) couldn't get time to call Sahabas to join his (a.s) forces.
One thing to note here is the Imams from Ahlul Bayt when they wanted to fight they shifted their capital away from Madina. When didn't want the Caliphate they usually returned to Madina.
-
Salaam,
http://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/
In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?
In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
As per Ahlus-sunnah, when there is dispute with the leader then the Prophet(saws) must be referred, even Quran(4:59) says so.
And those Sahaba didn't join Ali(ra) because as per their ijtihaad, they were following the command of Prophet(saws).
قالالحسن: ان عليا بعث إلى محمد بن مسلمة فجيء به فقال ما خلفك عن هذا الأمر قال دفع اليبن عمك يعني النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم سيفا فقال:” قاتل به ما قوتل العدو فإذارأيت الناس يقتل بعضهم بعضا فاعمد به إلى صخرة فاضربه بها ثم الزم بيتك حتى تأتيك منيةقاضية أو يد خاطئة”، قال خلوا عنه” . مسند أحمد بن حنبل : ج 4 ص: 225 ،وقالالشيخ شعيب الأرنؤوط:حسن بمجموع طرقه
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.
الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.
-
As per Ahlus-sunnah, when there is dispute with the leader then the Prophet(saws) must be referred, even Quran(4:59) says so.
And those Sahaba didn't join Ali(ra) because as per their ijtihaad, they were following the command of Prophet(saws).
According to Ahul Sunnah during the wars of Jamal and Siffin Sahabas got divided into three groups due to their ijtihad. So during these wars of Fitnah the decisions/actions taken by Sahabas was based on their Ijtihad.
Now it is important to understand what Ijtihad actually means according to Ahlul Sunnah. Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
There are two conditions for Ijtihad:
01. Ijtihad can only be made when one can't find answers in the Quran nor Sunnah.
02. Ijtihad cannot go against Quran and Sunnah.
Lets look at the three groups and how did they make their Ijtihad.
Group 1: Imam Ali (a.s) and his army
Sahabas and Muslims who joined the army of Imam Ali (a.s) during battles of Jamal and Siffin based their ijtihad on following the hadith of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w):
It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:
Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1847 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 82
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4554
According to the hadith given above Muslims were instructed by Prophet (s.a.w.w) to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials.
Group 2: People who did not participate in battles of Jamal & Siffin
This group consisted of majority of Sahabas according to Ahlul Sunnah. They made their ijtihad based on the hadiths given by Noor us Sunnah.
Hadith 1.
al-Hassan ibn ‘Ali (ra) said: ‘Ali called for Muhammad ibn Muslimah so he was brought to him and he asked: “Why not participate in this?” Ibn Muslimah said: Your cousin (Prophet) gave me this sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.” ‘Ali then told his men: “Leave him be.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal 4/225, Shu’ayb al-Arnaout said: all its chains are Hasan.
Hadith 2:
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili(my beloved companion) who is your cousin(means the Prophet SAWS) may peace be upon him made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.
Hadith 3
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.
Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)
This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.
Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.
01. Muslims commanded not to withdraw their obedience from their Ruler
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1855 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 101
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4573
02. Imam Ali (a.s) was elected Caliph by Muhajirun (Arabic: المهاجرون The Emigrants) and Ansar (Arabic: الأنصار al-Anṣār, "The Helpers") and Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) commanded Sahabas and Muslims to kill people who seeks to disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah.
It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:
" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567
03. Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) strongly condemned those people who fight with Legitimate Caliph/Ruler based on any pretext such as fighting for the cause of family honor or to support kith and kin.
It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
Whoever defects from obedience (to the Amir) and separates from the main body of the Muslim - and dies in that state - dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe is not from my Ummah, and whosoever from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1848 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 85
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4557
04. If Sahabas were disheartened of Imam Ali's (a.s) delaying or not being able to punish assassins of Uthman then they (Sahabas) should had exercised patience over Imam Ali (a.s) actions and should not had fought Imam Ali (a.s) as anyone who withdraws from the legitimate government would have died in the state of a person dying in the days of ignorance.
It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upoh him) said:
One who dislikes a thing done by his Amir should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a handspan and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of jahilliyya.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1849 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 88
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4560
-
According to Ahul Sunnah during the wars of Jamal and Siffin Sahabas got divided into three groups due to their ijtihad. So during these wars of Fitnah the decisions/actions taken by Sahabas was based on their Ijtihad.
Now it is important to understand what Ijtihad actually means according to Ahlul Sunnah. Ijtihad (Arabic اجتهاد) is a technical term of Islamic law that describes the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah.
There are two conditions for Ijtihad:
01. Ijtihad can only be made when one can't find answers in the Quran nor Sunnah.
02. Ijtihad cannot go against Quran and Sunnah.
Lets look at the three groups and how did they make their Ijtihad.
Group 1: Imam Ali (a.s) and his army
Sahabas and Muslims who joined the army of Imam Ali (a.s) during battles of Jamal and Siffin based their ijtihad on following the hadith of Nabi Mohammed (s.a.w.w):
It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said:
Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1847 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 82
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4554
According to the hadith given above Muslims were instructed by Prophet (s.a.w.w) to stick to the main body of the Muslims in the time of trials.
Group 2: People who did not participate in battles of Jamal & Siffin
This group consisted of majority of Sahabas according to Ahlul Sunnah. They made their ijtihad based on the hadiths given by Noor us Sunnah.
Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)
This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.
Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.
01. Muslims commanded not to withdraw their obedience from their Ruler
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Auf b. Malik that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
The best of your rulers are those whom you love and who love you, who invoke God's blessings upon you and you invoke His blessings upon them. And the worst of your rulers are those whom you hate and who hate you and whom you curse and who curse you. It was asked (by those present): Shouldn't we overthrow them with the help of the sword? He said: No, as long as they establish prayer among you. If you then find anything detestable in them. You should hate their administration, but do not withdraw yourselves from their obedience.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1855 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 101
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4573
02. Imam Ali (a.s) was elected Caliph by Muhajirun (Arabic: المهاجرون The Emigrants) and Ansar (Arabic: الأنصار al-Anṣār, "The Helpers") and Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) commanded Sahabas and Muslims to kill people who seeks to disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah.
It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:
" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567
03. Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) strongly condemned those people who fight with Legitimate Caliph/Ruler based on any pretext such as fighting for the cause of family honor or to support kith and kin.
It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said:
Whoever defects from obedience (to the Amir) and separates from the main body of the Muslim - and dies in that state - dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyya. And he who is killed under the banner of a man who is blind (to the cause for which he is fighting), who gets flared up with family pride and fights for his tribe is not from my Ummah, and whosoever from my followers attacks my followers (indiscriminately) killing the righteous and the wicked of them, sparing not (even) those staunch in faith and fulfilling not his obligation towards them who have been given a pledge (of security), is not from me (i.e. is not my follower).
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1848 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 85
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4557
04. If Sahabas were disheartened of Imam Ali's (a.s) delaying or not being able to punish assassins of Uthman then they (Sahabas) should had exercised patience over Imam Ali (a.s) actions and should not had fought Imam Ali (a.s) as anyone who withdraws from the legitimate government would have died in the state of a person dying in the days of ignorance.
It has been narrated (through a different chain of transmitters) on the authority of Ibn Abbas that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upoh him) said:
One who dislikes a thing done by his Amir should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a handspan and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of jahilliyya.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1849 b
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 88
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4560
I just want to put down these 2 points:
1. Muawiyya was yet to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Caliph;
2. It was Ali who brought an army to Syria and not Muawiyya brought an army to Kufa.
-
Group 3: People who fought against Legitimate Caliph (Ruler)
This group consisted of Sahabas and Muslims who fought against legitimate ruler of their time because according to them the legitimate Caliph was not able to avenge the death of third Caliph.
You a put their stance in the wrong way. Your statements portrays their stance as such that they went to fight with Caliph, which isn't the case, it was Ali(ra) who declared war on people on Shaam, so they were in the defensive in this case.
Now the main question: Based on what Quranic injuctions or Sunnah/Hadiths did this group do their ijtihad? Because I have got authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadiths forbidding Muslims to fight legitimate Ruler. This includes both Best and Worst Ruler i.e. Muslims aren't allowed to fight Ruler in any situation.
If you mean on what basis did they made their claim and were on the defensive against Ali(ra), then the right of Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith.
-
I just want to put down these 2 points:
1. Muawiyya was yet to pledge allegiance to Ali as the Caliph;
2. It was Ali who brought an army to Syria and not Muawiyya brought an army to Kufa.
So why did Muawiya not pledge allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?
Imam Ali (a.s) was elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura as Ruler of Muslim Ummah and become Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph.
Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army to Syria as per the commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. to kill those people who disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the legitimate Caliph (remember the report in which it is mentioned that when Abu Bakr was being given bayah by Ansar he looked for Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr and asked their reason in delaying bayah i.e. Abu Bakr questioned them by asking were they looking to cause disunity in Ummah to which they both responded in negative and gave bayah to Abu Bakr)
You a put their stance in the wrong way. Your statements portrays their stance as such that they went to fight with Caliph, which isn't the case, it was Ali(ra) who declared war on people on Shaam, so they were in the defensive in this case.
Imam Ali (a.s) declared war on people of Shaam as per commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:
" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567
Muawiya and people of Shaam were causing disunity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the Legitimate Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura.
If you mean on what basis did they made their claim and were on the defensive against Ali(ra), then the right of Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith.
Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.
-
It's not so simple, only a third of the nation gave `Ali Bay`ah, another third stood on the sidelines and took no sides and the rest actually opposed and even fought him. That's why `Ali's position as 4th Caliph was debated in the early days until the Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah settled it and normalized `Ali's Caliphate.
-
If Imam Ali (a.s) was made Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura then why did rest of the people not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?
After the death of Uthman there was only one Ruler in Muslim Ummah and people who opposed that Ruler were disrupting Muslim unity and thus weakening Muslims.
Opposition towards Imam Ali (a.s) was due to Imam Ali (a.s) delaying or being unable to punish assassins of Uthman. However, majority of Sahabas knew that there were only two options in this situation:
1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura; or
2. To break their swords and remain aloof from fighting the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
During the wars of Jamal & Siffin there was no other ruler in Muslim Ummah besides Imam Ali (a.s). It was due to hadiths (mentioned by me and Noor us Sunnah) that majority of Sahabas chosed one of the two options as they knew there wasn't third option. Majority of Sahabas never fought Ruler of their time even if they had not pledged allegiance to the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
As for those who fought Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura did so by going against the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. do not fight Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
Imam Ali (a.s) fought with those people who did not pledge allegiance to him (a.s) did so by obeying the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. Kill those people who disrupt Muslim unity.
-
So why did Muawiya not pledge allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?
I think you have already knew the answer. He demanded his right on Qisas of Uthman, as mentioned by brother Noor us Sunnah, before giving allegiance to Ali.
Imam Ali (a.s) was elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura as Ruler of Muslim Ummah and become Fourth Rightly Guided Caliph.
Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army to Syria as per the commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. to kill those people who disrupt unity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the legitimate Caliph (remember the report in which it is mentioned that when Abu Bakr was being given bayah by Ansar he looked for Imam Ali (a.s) and Zubayr and asked their reason in delaying bayah i.e. Abu Bakr questioned them by asking were they looking to cause disunity in Ummah to which they both responded in negative and gave bayah to Abu Bakr)
Imam Ali (a.s) declared war on people of Shaam as per commandment of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
It has been narrated (through a still different chain of transmitters) on the Same authority (i. e. 'Arfaja) who said similarly-but adding:
" Kill all of them." I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: When you are holding to one single man as your leader, you should kill who seeks to undermine your solidarity or disrupt your unity.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1852 c
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 95
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4567
Muawiya and people of Shaam were causing disunity in Muslim Ummah by not giving bayah to the Legitimate Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar in a Shura.
Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.
Before I proceed futher, one question I would like you to answer. How do you think that Sunnis come to a conclusion that Ali's ijtihad is right and not Muawiyya?
-
Qisas is mentioned in Quran and Hadith but fighting against Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah is nowhere mentioned in the Quran and Hadith.
It seems you didn't get the reason why I reminded to you that it was Ali(ra) who was on the offensive. If Ali(ra) was on the offensive then it doesn't befit you people to keep saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra), which gives the impression that he was on the offensive, which wasn't the case. Or atleast try using proper words like, Muawiya(ra) fought back Ali(ra), that would be better than just saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra).
-
If Imam Ali (a.s) was made Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura then why did rest of the people not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?
After the death of Uthman there was only one Ruler in Muslim Ummah and people who opposed that Ruler were disrupting Muslim unity and thus weakening Muslims.
Opposition towards Imam Ali (a.s) was due to Imam Ali (a.s) delaying or being unable to punish assassins of Uthman. However, majority of Sahabas knew that there were only two options in this situation:
1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura; or
2. To break their swords and remain aloof from fighting the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
During the wars of Jamal & Siffin there was no other ruler in Muslim Ummah besides Imam Ali (a.s). It was due to hadiths (mentioned by me and Noor us Sunnah) that majority of Sahabas chosed one of the two options as they knew there wasn't third option. Majority of Sahabas never fought Ruler of their time even if they had not pledged allegiance to the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
As for those who fought Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura did so by going against the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. do not fight Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
Imam Ali (a.s) fought with those people who did not pledge allegiance to him (a.s) did so by obeying the commandments of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) i.e. Kill those people who disrupt Muslim unity.
Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.
All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.
-
I think you have already knew the answer. He demanded his right on Qisas of Uthman, as mentioned by brother Noor us Sunnah, before giving allegiance to Ali.
Okay. So Muawiya preferred Qisas over Unity of Muslim Ummah. Muawiya disrupted Muslim Unity by laying down a condition on giving pledge of allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura.
Before I proceed futher, one question I would like you to answer. How do you think that Sunnis come to a conclusion that Ali's ijtihad is right and not Muawiyya?
You're asking me how do I think Sunnis came to a conclusion that ijtihad of Imam Ali (whose army consisted of assassins of Uthman) is right and not Muawiya (whose army consisted of lovers of Uthman who wanted to avenge Uthman's blood)? I really do not have knowledge regarding this topic. You may ask Hani as to when and how did Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah settled and normalized `Ali's Caliphate
-
It seems you didn't get the reason why I reminded to you that it was Ali(ra) who was on the offensive. If Ali(ra) was on the offensive then it doesn't befit you people to keep saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra), which gives the impression that he was on the offensive, which wasn't the case. Or atleast try using proper words like, Muawiya(ra) fought back Ali(ra), that would be better than just saying Muawiya(ra) fought Ali(ra).
I completely agree that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) as it was Imam Ali (a.s) who started offensive war with Muawiya. Are you now satisfied?
- Can you provide me a single hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to fight back the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when the latter (i.e. Ruler) has waged offensive war against the former (i.e. Muslims)?
- Why did Muawiya during the time of Fitna not adhere to a group of Muslims having a Leader as per instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?
Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:
The people used to ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) about good, but I used to ask him about evil for fear that it might overtake me. Once I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We were in ignorance and in evil and Allah has bestowed upon us the present good; will there by any evil after this good?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Will there be good after that evil?" He said, "Yes, but it would be tained with Dakhan (i.e. Little evil)." I asked, "What will its Dakhan be?" He said, "There will be some people who will lead (people) according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their actions and disapprove of them." I said, "Will there by any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes, there will be some people who will invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their invitation to it will be thrown in it (by them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Describe those people to us." He said, "They will belong to us and speak our language" I asked, "What do you order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the group of Muslims and their Chief." I asked, "If there is neither a group (of Muslims) nor a chief (what shall I do)?" He said, "Keep away from all those different sects, even if you had to bite (i.e. eat) the root of a tree, till you meet Allah while you are still in that state."
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3606
In-book reference: Book 61, Hadith 113
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 803
- Why did Muawiya and his army during the time of Fitna not strike their swords against the rocks as per instruction of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?
Hadith 3
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (ra): The Prophet SAWS said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.
- You said that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) but Tābi 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba said that Muawiya, "orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another" and Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As instead of refuting 'Abd al-Rahman said to the latter, "Obey him (i.e. Muawiya) in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God."?
It has been narrated on the authority of 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba who said:
I entered the mosque when 'Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As was sitting in the shade of the Ka'ba and the people had gathered around him. I betook myself to them and sat near him. (Now) Abdullah said: I accompanied the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) on a journey. We halted at a place. Some of us began to set right their tents, others began to compete with one another in shooting, and others began to graze their beasts, when an announcer of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) announced that the people should gather together for prayer, so we gathered around the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He said: It was the duty of every Prophet that has gone before me to guide his followers to what he knew was good for them and warn them against what he knew was bad for them; but this Umma of yours has its days of peace and (security) in the beginning of its career, and in the last phase of its existence it will be afflicted with trials and with things disagreeable to you. (In this phase of the Umma), there will be tremendous trials one after the other, each making the previous one dwindle into insignificance. When they would be afflicted with a trial, the believer would say: This is going to bring about my destruction. When at (the trial) is over, they would be afflicted with another trial, and the believer would say: This surely is going to be my end. Whoever wishes to be delivered from the fire and enter the garden should die with faith in Allah and the Last Day and should treat the people as he wishes to be treated by them. He who swears allegiance to a Caliph should give him the piedge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i. e. submit to him both outwardly as well as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. It another man comes forward (as a claimant to Caliphate), disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter. The narrator says: I came close to him ('Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As) and said to him: Can you say on oath that you heard it from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ)? He pointed with his hands to his ears and his heart and said: My ears heard it and my mind retained it. I said to him: This cousin of yours, Mu'awiya, orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another, while Allah says:" O ye who believe, do not consume your wealth among yourselves unjustly, unless it be trade based on mutual agreement, and do not kill yourselves. Verily, God is Merciful to you" (iv. 29). The narrator says that (hearing this) Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-As kept quiet for a while and then said: Obey him in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God.
Reference: Sahih Muslim 1844 a
In-book reference: Book 33, Hadith 74
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Book 20, Hadith 4546
-
Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.
All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.
But weren't they (i.e. Sahabas) aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to adhere to the group of Muslims having a Leader?
Narrated Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman:
The people used to ask Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) about good, but I used to ask him about evil for fear that it might overtake me. Once I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! We were in ignorance and in evil and Allah has bestowed upon us the present good; will there by any evil after this good?" He said, "Yes." I asked, "Will there be good after that evil?" He said, "Yes, but it would be tained with Dakhan (i.e. Little evil)." I asked, "What will its Dakhan be?" He said, "There will be some people who will lead (people) according to principles other than my tradition. You will see their actions and disapprove of them." I said, "Will there by any evil after that good?" He said, "Yes, there will be some people who will invite others to the doors of Hell, and whoever accepts their invitation to it will be thrown in it (by them)." I said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Describe those people to us." He said, "They will belong to us and speak our language" I asked, "What do you order me to do if such a thing should take place in my life?" He said, "Adhere to the group of Muslims and their Chief." I asked, "If there is neither a group (of Muslims) nor a chief (what shall I do)?" He said, "Keep away from all those different sects, even if you had to bite (i.e. eat) the root of a tree, till you meet Allah while you are still in that state."
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 3606
In-book reference: Book 61, Hadith 113
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 4, Book 56, Hadith 803
During battle of Siffin there existed only one group of Muslims having a Leader i.e. Imam Ali (a.s) who was elected as Legitimate Leader of Muslim Ummah by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura. Besides Imam Ali (a.s) there was no other Leader in Muslim Ummah at that time.
-
Why did Muawiya during the time of Fitna not adhere to a group of Muslims having a Leader as per instructions of the Prophet (s.a.w.w)?
But weren't they (i.e. Sahabas) aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to adhere to the group of Muslims having a Leader?
Things weren't as simple as you think, this is the reason in a Prophesy of Prophet(saws), he said that, the group that will kill khawarij will be NEAR to truth. Pay attention to the eloquence of Prophet(saws) and his choice of words. He didn't say, the party which kills khawarij would be ON the truth. He used the words "Near the truth", which shows that the other party to had a share of truth, lesser than the other but yet had a share of truth.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that a group (Khawarij) would emerge from the different parties (the party of Hadrat 'Ali and the party of Amir Mu'awiya), the group nearer the truth between the two would kill them. [Sahih Muslim 1065 e]
The situation that time was such that Uthman(ra) was martyred and those who martyred him infiltrated into the ranks of Shia of Ali(ra). So Muawiya(ra) asked for Qisas, and made this right as a condition, after which he agreed to give allegiance to Ali(ra). On the top of that, there were rumors spreading around that Ali(ra) had a hand in martyrdom of Uthman(ra). And then Ali(ra) kept delaying punishing the killers of Uthman(ra), which made things complicated and Muawiya(ra) considered him to be right in defending himself from the offensive attack in such chaotic situation. He made wrong ijtihad, as Sunnis believe, but he had a portion of truth.
Can you provide me a single hadith where Prophet (s.a.w.w) instructed Muslims to fight back the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when the latter (i.e. Ruler) has waged offensive war against the former (i.e. Muslims)?
Its an invalid question. Because Muawiya(ra) didn't give allegiance to Ali(ra) due his Ijtihad. So him being on defensive falls under this category as well, moreover we know that when your life is in danger, what is haram on you becomes halal in order to protect your life. So even if supposedly being on defensive against the leader was haram, but to protect his life from a leader who is on a wrong stance(as per Muawiya) he committed it considering it becomes legal in such a situation.
You said that Muawiya fought back Imam Ali (a.s) but Tābi 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abd Rabb al-Ka'ba said that Muawiya, "orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another" and Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As instead of refuting 'Abd al-Rahman said to the latter, "Obey him (i.e. Muawiya) in so far as he is obedient to God; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to God."?
As explained by scholars like Imam Nawawi
المقصود بهذا الكلام أن هذا القائل لما سمع كلام عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وذكر الحديث في تحريم منازعة الخليفة الأول، وأن الثاني يقتل، فاعتقد هذا القائل هذا الوصف في معاوية؛ لمنازعته عليا رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وكانت قد سبقت بيعة علي، فرأى هذا أن نفقة معاوية علي أجناده، وأتباعه في حرب علي، ومنازعته، ومقاتلته إياه، من أكل المال بالباطل، ومن قتل النفس؛ لأنه قتال بغير حق، فلا يستحق أحد مالا في مقاتلته
(شرح مسلم” 12/ 437. “كتاب الإمارة”.)
And Imam Qurtubi:
واستحلاف عبد الرحمن زيادة في الاستيثاق، لا أنه كذبه، ولا اتهمه. وما ذكره عبد الرحمن عن معاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه إغياء في الكلام على حسب ظنه، وتأويله، وإلا فمعاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه لم يعرف من حاله، ولا من سيرته شيء مما قال له، وإنما هذا كما قالت طائفة من الأعراب: إن ناسا من المصدقين يظلموننا، فسموا أخذ الصدقة ظلما؛ حسب ما وقع لهم
(المفهم 4/53)
The Taba'i narrator when heard the hadeeth from Abdullah bin Amr bin al-aas, about obeying the caliph, who is given caliphate first. He made his own deduction out of it applying to the case of Ali(ra) and Muawiya(ra). In regards to him saying "Muawiya orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another", he meant that since Ali(ra) was the rightful Caliph, then the wealth that Muawiya(ra) is spending in the war, is like unjust consumption of wealth and is like killing to kill one another. Now this was his personal deduction, whether it was correct or not is a different issue, as explained by Imam Qurtubi, since different people view andd judge things in different manner.
-
Salaam,
http://www.twelvershia.net/2018/09/10/did-the-sahabah-all-fight-each-other/
In the above article it is said that tiny minority of Sahabas participated in the Battle of Siffin. Now my question is that Imam Ali (a.s) was Caliph of Muslims during that battle. Weren't all Sahabas obliged to respond to the call of the leader of their time and join his army?
In authentic Ahlul Sunnah hadith I have read that obedience to the ruler is forbidden in matters sinful, but is otherwise obligatory. This means that if Imam Ali (a.s) called Sahabas to join him (a.s) against Muawiya then as being Caliph (Successor) of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) it was obligatory on the Sahabas to join Imam Ali's (a.s) army. Those who disobeyed Caliph of Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w) either by fighting him (a.s) or not joining his (i.e. Imam Ali a.s) army on the pretext of avoiding fitnah have indeed disobeyed Rasool-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
Very nicely put forward, Jazakallah! When it comes to the Ahle Sunnah you have principles as well as rules and regulations concerning Caliphate which apply to the first, second and then the third only. But then when it comes to the 4th this is where the principles along with rules and regulations fall apart and double standards kick in. When it comes to the 4th Caliph of the Ahle Sunnah, ifs and buts start to fly around. This is where they can't stay honest with Caliphate any longer. 😊
-
Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.
All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.
Things were absolutely clear during the fitna of the first, second and third but went shady during the 4th? 😊 Which were the ones who didn't give allegiance to Ali? Surely they were the ones who were the cause of fitna by abstaining. The matter is crystal clear, Ali was the 4th Caliph of the Ahle Sunnah and the Ulul Amre of the time, those who refused to give allegiance were the cause of division and fitna and those who opposed were rebels. Should be just as simple as that for the Ahle Sunnah just as it is for the first three.
-
Okay. So Muawiya preferred Qisas over Unity of Muslim Ummah. Muawiya disrupted Muslim Unity by laying down a condition on giving pledge of allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar through the process of Shura.
You're asking me how do I think Sunnis came to a conclusion that ijtihad of Imam Ali (whose army consisted of assassins of Uthman) is right and not Muawiya (whose army consisted of lovers of Uthman who wanted to avenge Uthman's blood)? I really do not have knowledge regarding this topic. You may ask Hani as to when and how did Imams of Ahlul-Sunnah settled and normalized `Ali's Caliphate
What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.
If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.
Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!
-
The matter was and is crystal clear. Confusion is deliberately created just to protect certain personalities rather than holding them responsible and accountable for using their influence and turning towards violence and threatening behaviour against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Just as simple as that whether you are of this time or that time or anywhere in between. 😊
It's your choice either to be straight, open and honest about Caliphate and rightly guided Caliphs just as you are concerning the first three or continue with your double standards regarding the 4th. 😊 No need for twists and turns and sweating over it.
-
The matter was and is crystal clear. Confusion is deliberately created just to protect certain personalities rather than holding them responsible and accountable for using their influence and turning towards violence and threatening behaviour against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. Just as simple as that whether you are of this time or that time or anywhere in between. 😊
It's your choice either to be straight, open and honest about Caliphate and rightly guided Caliphs just as you are concerning the first three or continue with your double standards regarding the 4th. 😊 No need for twists and turns and sweating over it.
Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.
-
Iceman
Be consistent with your logic.
If you are then it means you SHOULD believe abu lulu was a kafir & so were those who rose againsy the 3rd caliph. Oh & malik & those who rebelled during the first caliph’s rule as well.
-
Things weren't as simple as you think, this is the reason in a Prophesy of Prophet(saws), he said that, the group that will kill khawarij will be NEAR to truth. Pay attention to the eloquence of Prophet(saws) and his choice of words. He didn't say, the party which kills khawarij would be ON the truth. He used the words "Near the truth", which shows that the other party to had a share of truth, lesser than the other but yet had a share of truth.
Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that a group (Khawarij) would emerge from the different parties (the party of Hadrat 'Ali and the party of Amir Mu'awiya), the group nearer the truth between the two would kill them. [Sahih Muslim 1065 e]
The situation that time was such that Uthman(ra) was martyred and those who martyred him infiltrated into the ranks of Shia of Ali(ra). So Muawiya(ra) asked for Qisas, and made this right as a condition, after which he agreed to give allegiance to Ali(ra). On the top of that, there were rumors spreading around that Ali(ra) had a hand in martyrdom of Uthman(ra). And then Ali(ra) kept delaying punishing the killers of Uthman(ra), which made things complicated and Muawiya(ra) considered him to be right in defending himself from the offensive attack in such chaotic situation. He made wrong ijtihad, as Sunnis believe, but he had a portion of truth.
So you mean to say the group which consisted of haters and assassins of Uthman was more nearer to the truth than the group which consisted of lovers and avengers of Uthman's blood?
Its an invalid question. Because Muawiya(ra) didn't give allegiance to Ali(ra) due his Ijtihad. So him being on defensive falls under this category as well, moreover we know that when your life is in danger, what is haram on you becomes halal in order to protect your life. So even if supposedly being on defensive against the leader was haram, but to protect his life from a leader who is on a wrong stance(as per Muawiya) he committed it considering it becomes legal in such a situation.
It is very valid question. Even if Muawiya didn't pledge allegiance to the ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar... Muawiya as per the commandment of Prophet (s.a.w.w) could not wage war against the legitimate Ruler of Muslims. Muawiya had only two options:
1. Either to pledge allegiance to the Ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar; or
2. Strike his sword against the rock (or use wooden sword) and let himself be killed - see the hadiths 1 & 2 given by you where Muhammad ibn Muslimah says Prophet (s) gave him the sword and said: “Fight with it as long as you are fighting the enemy but when you see the people kill each other then seek a rock and strike it then retire to your home until you are dead or killed by a hand.”
As explained by scholars like Imam Nawawi
المقصود بهذا الكلام أن هذا القائل لما سمع كلام عبد الله بن عمرو بن العاص رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وذكر الحديث في تحريم منازعة الخليفة الأول، وأن الثاني يقتل، فاعتقد هذا القائل هذا الوصف في معاوية؛ لمنازعته عليا رضي الله تعالى عنهما، وكانت قد سبقت بيعة علي، فرأى هذا أن نفقة معاوية علي أجناده، وأتباعه في حرب علي، ومنازعته، ومقاتلته إياه، من أكل المال بالباطل، ومن قتل النفس؛ لأنه قتال بغير حق، فلا يستحق أحد مالا في مقاتلته
(شرح مسلم” 12/ 437. “كتاب الإمارة”.)
And Imam Qurtubi:
واستحلاف عبد الرحمن زيادة في الاستيثاق، لا أنه كذبه، ولا اتهمه. وما ذكره عبد الرحمن عن معاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه إغياء في الكلام على حسب ظنه، وتأويله، وإلا فمعاوية رضي الله تعالى عنه لم يعرف من حاله، ولا من سيرته شيء مما قال له، وإنما هذا كما قالت طائفة من الأعراب: إن ناسا من المصدقين يظلموننا، فسموا أخذ الصدقة ظلما؛ حسب ما وقع لهم
(المفهم 4/53)
The Taba'i narrator when heard the hadeeth from Abdullah bin Amr bin al-aas, about obeying the caliph, who is given caliphate first. He made his own deduction out of it applying to the case of Ali(ra) and Muawiya(ra). In regards to him saying "Muawiya orders us to unjustly consume our wealth among ourselves and to kill one another", he meant that since Ali(ra) was the rightful Caliph, then the wealth that Muawiya(ra) is spending in the war, is like unjust consumption of wealth and is like killing to kill one another. Now this was his personal deduction, whether it was correct or not is a different issue, as explained by Imam Qurtubi, since different people view andd judge things in different manner.
Then why did Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As not say to Tabi that he was wrong in his assumption and then corrected him by saying that Muawiya did what seemed to be right to him and there is nothing wrong in Muawiya making ijtihad to fight back legitimate Ruler of Muslims?
-
What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.
If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.
I totally agree with what you said except siding with Muawiya. Sahabas were commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) during the time of Fitna to:
1. Side with the legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah
2. Not to fight legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah
There are hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) also warned Muslims of becoming rebels by supporting the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah and thus disrupting the Unity of Muslim Ummah. If Muslims were to support (or join) the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah then Muslim Ruler and his supporters were to fight those rebels.
Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!
According to you who killed Ammar (r.a)? 1. Shias of Ali (a.s) or 2. Muawiya or 3. Khawarij?
While answering this question do provide reliable sources.
-
Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.
My pleasure! The first question based on Sunni perspective,
1, Was Ali a legitimate ruler or not? He was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He was also the Ulul Amre of the time. He is from Khulafaa e Rashedoon.
The second question based on Sunni perspective,
2, Can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Under which circumstances can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Which situation or condition permits you to go against a legitimate Muslim ruler?
CAN YOU ANSWER THIS?
Third question,
3, What issue did Muawiyah and his group (Safeen) or Aisha, Talah and Zubayr (Jamal) have against the legitimate Muslim ruler and the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the time?
Fourth question,
4, What ever the issue or matter was, did both groups (Safeen and Jamal) have the right to use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met?
Fifth question,
5, Those parties or groups who aren't in government if they use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are they not terrorist groups or organisations? If not then what are they and what is the definition and meaning of terrorist/s?
-
According to the Arabic lexicon, khilāfa (caliphate) literally means taking the position of others in order to perform the legal and religious rights behalf on them. It is also used in the meaning of vicegerency and successor in the Qur’an.
In Islam, the Prophet Muhammad is the Seal of the Prophets and no-one can take the place of the Prophet in his position as Messenger of God. However, other Muslims can represent his position as a ruler, for the Qur’an states:
O you who believe! Obey God and obey the Messenger, and those from among you who are invested with authority.
The first ruler for Muslims in Islamic history was the Prophet Muhammad. He became the head of state for a cosmopolite society, which consists of Jews, paganist Arabs and Muslims. However, the Prophet did not state who would be head of state after his death, nor did the Qur’an assign anyone for this job. Choosing a ruler for Muslims is a political issue; therefore it is left to people.
After the death of the Prophet, Muslims of Makkah gathered around Abu Bakr and Muslims of Medina around Sa’d bin Ubada. After long discussions, Abu Bakr was elected as the first ruler of the Muslim population. His title was Khalifatu Rasul al-Allah (Successor of Messenger of God), which can be understood as the ruler who comes after the Prophet.
The first four caliphs, Abu Bakr (632–4), ‘Umar (634–44), 'Uthman (644–56) and 'Ali (656–61) have been called “the rightly guided caliphs” (Khulafa Rashidin) by Sunni Muslims.
The determination of a title for the new leader was difficult, for prophethood would not be used for other Muslims. Therefore, the Muslim community adopted two titles for Muslim rulers after the Prophet: the ruler of believers (amir al-mu’minin) and the deputy of God (Khalifah Allah). From the second term (Khalifah), the English term caliph is derived.
-
So you mean to say the group which consisted of haters and assassins of Uthman was more nearer to the truth than the group which consisted of lovers and avengers of Uthman's blood?
At that time the killers and haters of Uthman(ra) had deserted and abandoned the group which was nearer to the truth due to their extremism. And some of them were infact killed by the group which was nearer to the truth.
It is very valid question. Even if Muawiya didn't pledge allegiance to the ruler elected by Muhajirun and Ansar... Muawiya as per the commandment of Prophet (s.a.w.w) could not wage war against the legitimate Ruler of Muslims.
Muawiya(ra) defended himself. And inorder to save ones life people can do things which are haram too, as I said before.
Then why did Sahabi Abdullah b. 'Amr b. al-'As not say to Tabi that he was wrong in his assumption and then corrected him by saying that Muawiya did what seemed to be right to him and there is nothing wrong in Muawiya making ijtihad to fight back legitimate Ruler of Muslims?
If you have experience with the ahadeeth and the way they are present, then you will find that in some cases not every hadeeth has details, the other info is scattered in other reports. Which means that one cannot use a hadeeth and ask why this and this was not said, because it is possible that it might have been said but it wasn't transmitted in that hadeeth or wasn't transmitted at all. But you cannot use it as a certain fact.
Secondly, as I said, that a person could even be wrong in his ijtihad. And Abdullah ibn Amr(ra) didn't want to be judgemental in this case. He gave a general advice to the Taba'ee to OBEY Muawiya(ra) in what he is obedient to Allah; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to Allah.
Notice that the Sahabi didn't say Muawiya(ra) isnt worth obedience in anything.
-
At that time the killers and haters of Uthman(ra) had deserted and abandoned the group which was nearer to the truth due to their extremism. And some of them were infact killed by the group which was nearer to the truth.
Great! If killers and haters of Uthman had deserted and abandoned Imam Ali (a.s) and some of them were in fact killed by Imam Ali (a.s) and his army then it means there was now no disagreement between Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya as the condition put forward by Muawiya for pledging allegiance to Legitimate Ruler was fulfilled.
After the separation and killing of some haters & assassins of Uthman did Muawiya pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s)? If not, may I know the reason for Muawiya not pledging allegiance to the Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah?
Muawiya(ra) defended himself. And inorder to save ones life people can do things which are haram too, as I said before.
1. Does a person elected as a Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura not make him a Ruler of Muslim Ummah irrespective of Muawiya and Sahabas not pledging that person allegiance? If according to you a person cannot become a Ruler of Muslim Ummah even if that person was elected as Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura until all Sahabas pledged him allegiance, then can you provide me evidence of this from authentic reports?
2. Can you give me a single authentic hadith which states that it is permissible to fight the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when one's life is in danger?
3. Can you provide a single hadith which states that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person would still be going to Paradise?
Below I provide hadith regarding fighting Muslim Ruler:
Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit:
We gave the oath of allegiance to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) that we would listen to and obey him both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired and that we would not fight against the ruler or disobey him, and would stand firm for the truth or say the truth wherever we might be, and in the Way of Allah we would not be afraid of the blame of the blamers. (See Hadith No. 178 and 320)
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 7199, 7200
In-book reference: Book 93, Hadith 60
USC-MSA web (English) reference: Vol. 9, Book 89, Hadith 307
If you have experience with the ahadeeth and the way they are present, then you will find that in some cases not every hadeeth has details, the other info is scattered in other reports. Which means that one cannot use a hadeeth and ask why this and this was not said, because it is possible that it might have been said but it wasn't transmitted in that hadeeth or wasn't transmitted at all. But you cannot use it as a certain fact.
Secondly, as I said, that a person could even be wrong in his ijtihad. And Abdullah ibn Amr(ra) didn't want to be judgemental in this case. He gave a general advice to the Taba'ee to OBEY Muawiya(ra) in what he is obedient to Allah; and disobey him in matters involving disobedience to Allah.
Notice that the Sahabi didn't say Muawiya(ra) isnt worth obedience in anything.
Obey Muawiya? Muawiya wasn't the Ruler of Muslim Ummah at that time so people of Shaam weren't bound to obey him nor was Muawiya governor of Shaam under the legitimate government of that time. Muawiya in fact rebelled against the legitimate Muslim government and thus had divided Muslim Ummah into two parts.
It was ALLAH'S (SWT) Blessing and prophecy of Prophet (s.a.w.w) that Sayyid Imam Hassan (a.s) united the Muslim Ummah which was divided by Muawiya. If ALLAH (SWT) hadn't united the Muslim Ummah through HIS Messenger's (s.a.w.w) blessed grandson then this Ummah would had remained divided due to Muawiya.
-
Great! If killers and haters of Uthman had deserted and abandoned Imam Ali (a.s) and some of them were in fact killed by Imam Ali (a.s) and his army then it means there was now no disagreement between Imam Ali (a.s) and Muawiya as the condition put forward by Muawiya for pledging allegiance to Legitimate Ruler was fulfilled.
Some doesn't mean all. Care to improve your IQ, otherwise you will never end making silly arguments.
1. Does a person elected as a Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura not make him a Ruler of Muslim Ummah irrespective of Muawiya and Sahabas not pledging that person allegiance? If according to you a person cannot become a Ruler of Muslim Ummah even if that person was elected as Ruler by Muhajirun and Ansar through legitimate process of Shura until all Sahabas pledged him allegiance, then can you provide me evidence of this from authentic reports?
He'll become the ruler.
2. Can you give me a single authentic hadith which states that it is permissible to fight the Ruler of Muslim Ummah when one's life is in danger?
There isn't any specific ruling in this regards, but based on the general ruling I said that thing. And we can see the example of Hussain(ra) and other Sahaba who threatened to fight the ruler in a case when they thought he was treated unjustly.
Yazid b. `Abdullah b. Usama b. al-Hadi al-Laythi told me that Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Taymi told him that there was a dispute between al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abu Talib and al-Walid b. `Utba b. Abu Sufyan about some property they held in Dhu’l-Marwa. At that time al-Walid was governor of Medina, his uncle, Mu`awiya b. Abu Sufyan having given him the appointment. Al-Walid had defrauded al-Husayn of his rights, for as governor he had the power to do so. Husayn said to him: `By Allah you shall do me justice or I will take my sword and stand in the apostle’s mosque and invoke the confederacy of the Fudul!’ `Abdullah b. al-Zubayr who was with al-Walid at the time said: `And I swear by Allah that if he invokes it I will take my sword and stand with him until he gets justice, or we will die together.‘ When the news reached al-Miswar b.Makhrama b. Naufal al-Zuhri and `Abdu’l-Rahman b. `Uthman b.`Ubaydullah al-Taymi they said the same. As soon as he realized what was happening al-Walid gave al-Husayn satisfaction.(Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47).
3. Can you provide a single hadith which states that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person would still be going to Paradise?
Allah says that the only sin he won't forgive is shirk. The rest are those which he may forgive. And there are several acts of worship which wipes out all the sins of a believer. And the sin that is committed forcefully is more entitled to fall under this category.
Can you quote any hadeeth which says that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person cannot enter Paradise?
It was ALLAH'S (SWT) Blessing and prophecy of Prophet (s.a.w.w) that Sayyid Imam Hassan (a.s) united the Muslim Ummah which was divided by Muawiya. If ALLAH (SWT) hadn't united the Muslim Ummah through HIS Messenger's (s.a.w.w) blessed grandson then this Ummah would had remained divided due to Muawiya.
Indeed Allah(swt) united two group of MUSLIMS through Hasan(ra). Ahlus-sunnah believes in this prophesy whole heartedly. And in a way this prophesy destroys the myth of divinely appointed leader after Prophet Muhammad(saws). Because a group which fights a divinely appointed leader would be deemed disbeliever.
-
I totally agree with what you said except siding with Muawiya. Sahabas were commanded by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) during the time of Fitna to:
1. Side with the legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah
2. Not to fight legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah
There are hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) also warned Muslims of becoming rebels by supporting the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah and thus disrupting the Unity of Muslim Ummah. If Muslims were to support (or join) the opponent/rival of Legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah then Muslim Ruler and his supporters were to fight those rebels.
Sigh... Seems like you still do not understand what "hindsight 20/20" mean. Do you think that when the dispute began between Ali and Muawiyya about the blood of Uthman, straightaway Sahabas recognized that as fitna?
According to you who killed Ammar (r.a)? 1. Shias of Ali (a.s) or 2. Muawiya or 3. Khawarij?
While answering this question do provide reliable sources.
It doesn't matter who killed Ammar. The point I wanted to bring to your attention was that Ammar's death is the determining factor on whose ijtihad was the right one. And that happenned AFTER the battle had broken out, NOT EARLIER than that. Therefore, during the start of the dispute, it wasn't clear whose ijtihad was right and whose was wrong and we see majority of Sahabas abstained themselves as consequense.
-
@iceman,
I wrote this to @Ijtaba but this is the context of my challenge to you:
What you wrote is what is called as "hindsight 20/20". It is easy for people who live after an event to say compared to those who live during that event itself.
If that was as crytal clear as you think, you would find majority of sahabas, who lived during that turbulent period, would have been siding with either Ali or Muawiyya, which by historical facts, not the case as stated by the article. They abstained themselves.
Interestingly enough, the criteria used by people of later times to conclude that Ali's ijtihad is right got nothing to do with analysing the arguments presented by both Ali and Muawiyya like what you were trying to do. Rather the criteria is the killing of someone in a battle (i.e. Ammar)!
Then, I asked you this:
Prove it from historical account that the matter is crytal clear and confusion was created to protect certain personalities.
And you responded with all these questions as your "historical account". And those questions UNRELATED to my challenge too:
My pleasure! The first question based on Sunni perspective,
1, Was Ali a legitimate ruler or not? He was the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. He was also the Ulul Amre of the time. He is from Khulafaa e Rashedoon.
The second question based on Sunni perspective,
2, Can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Under which circumstances can you go against a legitimate Muslim ruler? Which situation or condition permits you to go against a legitimate Muslim ruler?
CAN YOU ANSWER THIS?
Third question,
3, What issue did Muawiyah and his group (Safeen) or Aisha, Talah and Zubayr (Jamal) have against the legitimate Muslim ruler and the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the time?
Fourth question,
4, What ever the issue or matter was, did both groups (Safeen and Jamal) have the right to use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met?
Fifth question,
5, Those parties or groups who aren't in government if they use their influence and resort to violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met are they not terrorist groups or organisations? If not then what are they and what is the definition and meaning of terrorist/s?
Poor you. I agree with Sis Mythbuster. You are a kind of a TROLL...
-
@iceman,
I wrote this to @Ijtaba but this is the context of my challenge to you:
Then, I asked you this:
And you responded with all these questions as your "historical account". And those questions UNRELATED to my challenge too:
Poor you. I agree with Sis Mythbuster. You are a kind of a TROLL...
😀 I'm not a troll, you're just bad loosers. If you feel that you're loosing an argument or can't keep up with a discussion then accuse and abuse becomes your policy and way.
You don't have two parties or groups at a balanced and equal level. This is what you're trying to make it look like for the past 1400 years or so.
You have the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen and the Ulul Amre and a legitimate ruler of the time,
those who used their influence, connection and wealth and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met against the legitimate ruler of the time are not wrong but infact are DEAD WRONG!
It doesn't matter about their popularity, personality or prestige status, this shouldn't be thought of and brought in when it comes to ABSOLUTE JUSTICE!
When it comes to criminality or criminal activity of what ever kind your celebrity status and popular personality shouldn't effect the judgment that's passed on about you and this shouldn't be the case to mitigate matters.
Just as simple as that. If you're involved in any criminal activity of what ever kind then you're a criminal be it terrorism, treason or what ever, be it against an individual, a company or department or the government or state. Just as simple as that. 😊
-
😀 I'm not a troll, you're just bad loosers. If you feel that you're loosing an argument or can't keep up with a discussion then accuse and abuse becomes your policy and way.
You don't have two parties or groups at a balanced and equal level. This is what you're trying to make it look like for the past 1400 years or so.
You have the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen and the Ulul Amre and a legitimate ruler of the time,
those who used their influence, connection and wealth and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met against the legitimate ruler of the time are not wrong but infact are DEAD WRONG!
It doesn't matter about their popularity, personality or prestige status, this shouldn't be thought of and brought in when it comes to ABSOLUTE JUSTICE!
When it comes to criminality or criminal activity of what ever kind your celebrity status and popular personality shouldn't effect the judgment that's passed on about you and this shouldn't be the case to mitigate matters.
Just as simple as that. If you're involved in any criminal activity of what ever kind then you're a criminal be it terrorism, treason or what ever, be it against an individual, a company or department or the government or state. Just as simple as that. 😊
Still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.
-
Salaam
...
Wa alaykom salam,
I am not sure whether you are trying to understand the position or are trying to argue against it (both attempts are ok of course), but if the latter the following might not be helpful for you. If however you are trying to understand the position, it might help to use a little bit of imagination and change some names and use any emotional bias you might have to your advantage.
Imagine it wasn't Uthman ibn Affan who was killed but Ali ibn Abi Talib. Right after this, his haters and killers rush towards Umar ibn al Khattab to pledge allegiance to him and Umar doesn't take any measures to bring the killers to justice. Imagine al Hassan ibn Ali was installed as the governor of Egypt by his father and right after his death Umar ibn al Khattab demands his allegiance or be deposed from the position. Imagine Umar then assembles an army and moves towards Egypt to forcefully remove al Hassan from his position.
Do you then believe that al Hassan, after his own father installed him as governor and after his father literally got beaten to death and after the very people who did that pledged allegiance to Umar, who doesn't even have close to the full support of everyone and who can't or won't do anything about Ali's killers and who marches with an army to forcefully remove him from this position his father installed him, has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER to defend himself according to Islam? Remember, this isn't about what is the right thing to do here, but your claim that he couldn't even genuinely consider this option as remotely acceptable.
Of course this is just an emotional argument and not a rational argument, but it can in fact help to understand the rational arguments better, if one is open minded about it.
To be honest, if it really was like this, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Shia would consider Umar complicit in Ali's murder and would curse him day and night for that. If true, it would just go to show that nawasib and rawafid are two sides of the same coin.
-
Wa alaykom salam,
I am not sure whether you are trying to understand the position or are trying to argue against it (both attempts are ok of course), but if the latter the following might not be helpful for you. If however you are trying to understand the position, it might help to use a little bit of imagination and change some names and use any emotional bias you might have to your advantage.
Imagine it wasn't Uthman ibn Affan who was killed but Ali ibn Abi Talib. Right after this, his haters and killers rush towards Umar ibn al Khattab to pledge allegiance to him and Umar doesn't take any measures to bring the killers to justice. Imagine al Hassan ibn Ali was installed as the governor of Egypt by his father and right after his death Umar ibn al Khattab demands his allegiance or be deposed from the position. Imagine Umar then assembles an army and moves towards Egypt to forcefully remove al Hassan from his position.
Do you then believe that al Hassan, after his own father installed him as governor and after his father literally got beaten to death and after the very people who did that pledged allegiance to Umar, who doesn't even have close to the full support of everyone and who can't or won't do anything about Ali's killers and who marches with an army to forcefully remove him from this position his father installed him, has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER to defend himself according to Islam? Remember, this isn't about what is the right thing to do here, but your claim that he couldn't even genuinely consider this option as remotely acceptable.
Of course this is just an emotional argument and not a rational argument, but it can in fact help to understand the rational arguments better, if one is open minded about it.
To be honest, if it really was like this, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Shia would consider Umar complicit in Ali's murder and would curse him day and night for that. If true, it would just go to show that nawasib and rawafid are two sides of the same coin.
You've got your facts absolutely and entirely wrong. But ok, lets see some historical evidence. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Lets clear this.
-
Still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.
It's been put forward to you but I don't think you want to see things beyond your arrogance over the matter.
-
Some doesn't mean all. Care to improve your IQ, otherwise you will never end making silly arguments.
According to Ahlul Sunnah, assassins of Uthman and their supporters were unknown and it was very arduous task for Imam Ali (a.s) to punish assassins of Uthman with their supporters at the time Imam Ali (a.s) took the seat of ruler-ship. It was keeping in mind this situation I said that killing some assassins of Uthman would had shown Muawiya the sincerity of Imam Ali (a.s) in willingness to punish murderers and thus avenge Uthman's murder. Muawiya on the basis of this should had pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) in order to unite Muslim Ummah. That is Unity of Muslim Ummah should had been given preference as divided Muslim Ummah would had weaken Muslims and made them vulnerable from outside (non-Muslims) attacks.
If you still insist that killing all unknown assassins and punishing all unknown supporters of assassins was important prerequisite for giving allegiance to the Imam Ali (a.s) and preferred over Unity of Muslim Ummah then I did like to know whether Muawiya killed all assassins of Uthman and punished their supporters when he took the seat of ruler-ship? If yes then provide evidence for this.
He'll become the ruler.
There isn't any specific ruling in this regards, but based on the general ruling I said that thing. And we can see the example of Hussain(ra) and other Sahaba who threatened to fight the ruler in a case when they thought he was treated unjustly.
Provide evidence of Imam Hussayn (a.s) threatening to fight the ruler when he thought he was being treated unjustly?
In the Event of Karbala according to Ahlul Sunnah Imam Hussayn (a.s) was willing to pay bayah to Yazid and did not rebel against Yazid but the ibn Ziyad and his forces fought with Imam (a.s). Imam Hussayn (a.s) fighting back for defense against ibn Ziyad and his forces had nothing to do with rebelling against Yazid as according to Ahlul Sunnah Yazid himself became angry at ibn Ziyad and cursed him for his actions of fighting and killing Imam Hussayn (a.s)
Yazid b. `Abdullah b. Usama b. al-Hadi al-Laythi told me that Muhammad b. Ibrahim b. al-Harith al-Taymi told him that there was a dispute between al-Husayn b. `Ali b. Abu Talib and al-Walid b. `Utba b. Abu Sufyan about some property they held in Dhu’l-Marwa. At that time al-Walid was governor of Medina, his uncle, Mu`awiya b. Abu Sufyan having given him the appointment. Al-Walid had defrauded al-Husayn of his rights, for as governor he had the power to do so. Husayn said to him: `By Allah you shall do me justice or I will take my sword and stand in the apostle’s mosque and invoke the confederacy of the Fudul!’ `Abdullah b. al-Zubayr who was with al-Walid at the time said: `And I swear by Allah that if he invokes it I will take my sword and stand with him until he gets justice, or we will die together.‘ When the news reached al-Miswar b.Makhrama b. Naufal al-Zuhri and `Abdu’l-Rahman b. `Uthman b.`Ubaydullah al-Taymi they said the same. As soon as he realized what was happening al-Walid gave al-Husayn satisfaction.(Seerah ibn Hisham, page 47).
How is confederacy of the Fudul and rebelling against the ruler related? :o
Where there is a dispute between two people (in this scenario between Imam Hussayn a.s and governor Walid) then oppressed person may invoke the confederacy of the Fudul. Nobody thought (including Walid) that Imam Hussayn's (a.s) invoking confederacy of Fudul was equivalent to rebelling against Muawiya. If you believe otherwise then please prove it by providing reliable narrations.
The example most relevant should be Imam Hussayn (a.s) invoking confederacy of Fudul against the ruler (i.e. Muawiya). There are many cases in history where people complained against governors of the legitimate government to the ruler and those governors got punished and/or were removed from their positions of governance by the ruler when the complaints were found to be valid but never did anyone think that valid complain against governors was rebelling against the ruler (unless if ruler himself explicitly says that complaining against his governors' illegal actions is tantamount to rebelling against the former)
Allah says that the only sin he won't forgive is shirk. The rest are those which he may forgive. And there are several acts of worship which wipes out all the sins of a believer. And the sin that is committed forcefully is more entitled to fall under this category.
- Also Fighting Muslim is Kufr
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is an evil action and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
Provide evidence and not your opinion. I want evidence (from Quran or Hadith) of person fighting the ruler of his time is a sin that is committed forcefully and is pardonable.
Can you quote any hadeeth which says that if a person does haram act (i.e. fight Legitimate Muslim Ruler) in order to save one's life then that person cannot enter Paradise?
Sure.
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Insulting a Muslim is an evil action and fighting him is disbelief (kufr).”
Fighting Muslim is Kufr... so how about fighting Muslim Ruler?
According to the light of this hadith fighting (and fighting back) Muslim Ruler is Kufr. If you believe otherwise then provide evidence for this i.e. there is exception where a person may fight back Muslim/Muslim ruler to save his life. According to this hadith fighting any Muslim is Kufr. Plain and simple.
Indeed Allah(swt) united two group of MUSLIMS through Hasan(ra). Ahlus-sunnah believes in this prophesy whole heartedly. And in a way this prophesy destroys the myth of divinely appointed leader after Prophet Muhammad(saws). Because a group which fights a divinely appointed leader would be deemed disbeliever.
And what do you want to prove by this?
Sahih Muslim
Book 20, Number 4502:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Malik that Ubaidullah b. Ziyad visited Ma'qil b. Yaser in the latter's illness. Ma'qil said to him: I am narrating to you a tradition. If I were not at death's door, I would not narrate it to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace he upon him) say: A ruler who, having obtained control over the affairs of the Muslims, does not strive for their betterment and does not serve them sincerely shall not enter Paradise with them.
-
Sigh... Seems like you still do not understand what "hindsight 20/20" mean. Do you think that when the dispute began between Ali and Muawiyya about the blood of Uthman, straightaway Sahabas recognized that as fitna?
It doesn't matter who killed Ammar. The point I wanted to bring to your attention was that Ammar's death is the determining factor on whose ijtihad was the right one. And that happenned AFTER the battle had broken out, NOT EARLIER than that. Therefore, during the start of the dispute, it wasn't clear whose ijtihad was right and whose was wrong and we see majority of Sahabas abstained themselves as consequense.
According to Ahlul Sunnah Islam was complete when Prophet (s.a.w.w) left this world. This means Prophet (s.a.w.w) foretold his people how to conduct their actions at time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
There are clear hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) said to Muslims how to conduct their affairs during time of peace as well as during time of Fitna:
01. Muslims should pledge allegiance to legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
02. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
03. Muslims should not fight Muslim Ruler (even if he be a bad ruler) even if they (i.e. Muslims) are killed... both during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
If you believe otherwise then provide your evidence with authentic narrations instead of your opinions.
-
Wa alaykom salam,
I am not sure whether you are trying to understand the position or are trying to argue against it (both attempts are ok of course), but if the latter the following might not be helpful for you. If however you are trying to understand the position, it might help to use a little bit of imagination and change some names and use any emotional bias you might have to your advantage.
Imagine it wasn't Uthman ibn Affan who was killed but Ali ibn Abi Talib. Right after this, his haters and killers rush towards Umar ibn al Khattab to pledge allegiance to him and Umar doesn't take any measures to bring the killers to justice. Imagine al Hassan ibn Ali was installed as the governor of Egypt by his father and right after his death Umar ibn al Khattab demands his allegiance or be deposed from the position. Imagine Umar then assembles an army and moves towards Egypt to forcefully remove al Hassan from his position.
Do you then believe that al Hassan, after his own father installed him as governor and after his father literally got beaten to death and after the very people who did that pledged allegiance to Umar, who doesn't even have close to the full support of everyone and who can't or won't do anything about Ali's killers and who marches with an army to forcefully remove him from this position his father installed him, has NO BASIS WHATSOEVER to defend himself according to Islam? Remember, this isn't about what is the right thing to do here, but your claim that he couldn't even genuinely consider this option as remotely acceptable.
Of course this is just an emotional argument and not a rational argument, but it can in fact help to understand the rational arguments better, if one is open minded about it.
To be honest, if it really was like this, it wouldn't be surprising at all that most Shia would consider Umar complicit in Ali's murder and would curse him day and night for that. If true, it would just go to show that nawasib and rawafid are two sides of the same coin.
Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya for the sake of uniting of Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya divided Muslim Ummah on the pretext of avenging Uthman's blood.
Ahlul Sunnah believes that Imam Hassan (a.s) was more rightful than Muawiya of being Ruler of Muslim Ummah but Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship for the sake of uniting Muslim Ummah as Muawiya's greed for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah. Such an act of Imam Hassan (a.s) loved by GOD and praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) saved the Muslim Ummah from terrible fate. Imam Hassan (a.s) knew that Muawiya would not stop the division of Muslim Ummah unless Muawiya's desire for ruler-ship was fulfilled and thus Imam Hassan (a.s) being more worthy of Ruler-ship gave up his ruler-ship.
As for your example... ALLAH (SWT) and HIS Prophet's (s.a.w.w) are to be obeyed. As per the example, Imam Hassan (a.s) would be legitimate governor under Imam Ali (a.s) rule. When Umar becomes Ruler then Imam Hassan (a.s) should obey Umar's order and hand over his seat of governorship. If Imam Hassan (a.s) does not comply with the legitimate ruler (i.e. Umar) then in the light of Quran, Imam Hassan (a.s) has rebelled against the legitimate Ruler and thus legitimate Ruler has full right and authority to fight the rebel (i.e. in this example Imam Hassan a.s). And there can be no justification in the light of Quran and Hadith for Imam Hassan (a.s) fighting back the legitimate ruler of his time (i.e. Umar) as Imam Hassan (a.s) cannot fight nor kill the legitimate ruler of his time.
-
Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya for the sake of uniting of Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya divided Muslim Ummah on the pretext of avenging Uthman's blood.
Ahlul Sunnah believes that Imam Hassan (a.s) was more rightful than Muawiya of being Ruler of Muslim Ummah but Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship for the sake of uniting Muslim Ummah as Muawiya's greed for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah. Such an act of Imam Hassan (a.s) loved by GOD and praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) saved the Muslim Ummah from terrible fate. Imam Hassan (a.s) knew that Muawiya would not stop the division of Muslim Ummah unless Muawiya's desire for ruler-ship was fulfilled and thus Imam Hassan (a.s) being more worthy of Ruler-ship gave up his ruler-ship.
I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.
As for your example... ALLAH (SWT) and HIS Prophet's (s.a.w.w) are to be obeyed. As per the example, Imam Hassan (a.s) would be legitimate governor under Imam Ali (a.s) rule. When Umar becomes Ruler then Imam Hassan (a.s) should obey Umar's order and hand over his seat of governorship. If Imam Hassan (a.s) does not comply with the legitimate ruler (i.e. Umar) then in the light of Quran, Imam Hassan (a.s) has rebelled against the legitimate Ruler and thus legitimate Ruler has full right and authority to fight the rebel (i.e. in this example Imam Hassan a.s). And there can be no justification in the light of Quran and Hadith for Imam Hassan (a.s) fighting back the legitimate ruler of his time (i.e. Umar) as Imam Hassan (a.s) cannot fight nor kill the legitimate ruler of his time.
I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?
-
I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.
I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?
Muawiyah had no basis/no ground for not pledging allegiance and for not recognising Ali as the rightful ruler, if he did then what was it?
He didn't fight Ali back but he used means of violence and threatening behaviour to have his demands met and raised arms against the Ulul Amre of the time, which he had no right to and which is a serious crime itself.
-
According to Ahlul Sunnah Islam was complete when Prophet (s.a.w.w) left this world. This means Prophet (s.a.w.w) foretold his people how to conduct their actions at time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
There are clear hadiths where Prophet (s.a.w.w) said to Muslims how to conduct their affairs during time of peace as well as during time of Fitna:
01. Muslims should pledge allegiance to legitimate Ruler of Muslim Ummah during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
02. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
03. Muslims should not fight Muslim Ruler (even if he be a bad ruler) even if they (i.e. Muslims) are killed... both during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
If you believe otherwise then provide your evidence with authentic narrations instead of your opinions.
Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.
These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:
الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]
عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره
Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]
عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .
Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]
أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.]
And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili (my beloved companion) who is your cousin (means the Prophet), may peace be upon him, made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
[Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.]
حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "
Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].
During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.]
Even in a Twelvers' source below:
When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]
Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti
-
It's been put forward to you but I don't think you want to see things beyond your arrogance over the matter.
Do you have any idea how historical account look like? They look like this:
Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.
These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:
الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]
عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره
Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]
عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .
Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]
أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.]
And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili (my beloved companion) who is your cousin (means the Prophet), may peace be upon him, made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
[Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.]
حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "
Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].
During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.]
Even in a Twelvers' source below:
When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]
Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti
Again, I'm still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.
Go...
-
Do you have any idea how historical account look like? They look like this:
Again, I'm still waiting for historical account as proof that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya is clear as you claim.
Go...
HERE WE GO......
ALI and MUAWIYYA...No, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen, Legitimate ruler and Ulul Amre of the time and Muawiyya. We don't have two parties or groups here, but infact we the Islamic Caliphate v the rebellious group. Simple and end of the story. Don't try to cover it up and make it look grey, shady, muddy and confusing by HISTORICAL FACTS and this, that and the other. Stick to the principles.
-
HERE WE GO......
ALI and MUAWIYYA...No, Caliphatul Muslimeen, Ameerul Momineen, Legitimate ruler and Ulul Amre of the time and Muawiyya. We don't have two parties or groups here, but infact we the Islamic Caliphate v the rebellious group. Simple and end of the story. Don't try to cover it up and make it look grey, shady, muddy and confusing by HISTORICAL FACTS and this, that and the other. Stick to the principles.
Don't try to make up your own conclusion without any evidences from historical account. Who are we to talk about this subject if the information is not based on historical account of previous people.
Still, you failed to provide any historical evidence as proof your claim. In contrast, the previous post and the following show that the matter between Ali and Muawiyya was NOT AS CLEAR TO THE SAHABAS WHO LIVED DURING THAT TIME as you think:
عن أيوبالسختياني ، عن محمد بن سيرين أنه قال : لما حدثت الفتنة كان عدد الصحابة عشرة آلاف، لم يخف منهم أربعون رجلا. معمر بن راشد : الجامع ، ج 11ص: 357 واسنادها صحيح
From Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani from Muhammad ibn Sireen: :When the Fitnah broke out the number of companions was ten thousand, those who participated never reached forty.
[Source: Mu’ammar ibn Rashid: al-Jami’i 11/357. Grading: SAHIH.]
عن عبدالله بن أحمد بن حنبل ، عن أبيه ، عن اسماعيل-ابن علية- عن أيوب- السختياني- عن محمدبن سيرين ، أن قال : (( هاجت الفتنة و أصحاب رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- عشرةآلاف ، فما حضر فيها مائة ، بل لم يبلغوا ثلاثين )).الخلال : السنة ، ج2 ص: 466 .واحمد بن حنبل : العلل و معرفة الرجال ، ج3 ص: 182 .والاسناد صحيح
‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal from his father from Ismael from Ayyub from Muhammad: The Fitnah raged and the companions were ten thousand but not even a hundred participated, not even thirty.
[Source: al-Sunnah by al-Khallal 2/466 and Ahmad ibn Hanbal in al-‘Ilal wa Ma’arifat al-Rijal 3/182. Grading: SAHIH.]
من طريق ابن لهيعة عن يسار بن عند الرحمن قال : قال لي بكير بن الأشج : ما فعل خالك . قال : قلت : لزم البيت منذ كذا وكذا . فقال : إلا أن رجالاً من أهل بدر لزموا بيوتهم بعد قتل عثمان فلم يخرجوا إلا إلى قبورهم
Bukayr bin al-Ashij that he said: “Men from the people of Badr remained in their houses after the death of `Uthman, and they did not come out except to their graves.”
[Source: al-Tamheed 17/442 by ibn `Abdul-Barr and al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah 7/179 by Ibn Katheer.]
عن الشعبي أنه قال : (( بالله الذي لا إله إلا هو ، ما نهض في ذلك الأمر إلا ستة بدريين، ما لهم من سابع )).تاريخ الطبري ج3 ص: 6
From Al Sha’aby that he Said: by Allah the one and only, in that affair only six of the Ahlu Badr took part with no seventh.
[Source: Tareekh al tabari 3/6.]
و من مظاهر الاعتزال الجماعي للفتنة ، أن علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه عندما ندب أهل المدينة للخروج معه للقتال لم يوافقوه ،و أبوا الخروج معه ، فكلّم عبد الله بن عمر شخصيا للخروج معه ، فقال له : أنا رجل من المدينة . ثم كرر عليهم دعوته للسير معه عندما سمع بخروج أهل مكة إلى البصرة ، فتثاقل عنه أكثرهم ،و استجاب له ما بين : 4 الى7 من البدريين.ابن كثير : البداية و النهاية ج 7 ص: 231 .
When Ali bin Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) asked the people of Madinah to go out with him in battle they disagreed and refused, So he talked to Ibn Omar (رضي الله عنه) personally regarding this but Ibn Omar (RA) replied: I am (but) a man of Madinah. Then he repeated this invitation when he heard that The people of Mecca left for Basarah but most refused this and only around 4 to 7 from ahlu Badr accepted.
[Ibn Katheer: al bidayah wal nihayah 7/231.]
قال بُكَيْرُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ الأَشَجِّ :”إِنَّ رِجَالا مِنْ أَهْلِ بَدْرٍ لَزِمُوا بُيُوتَهُمْ بَعْدَ قَتْلِ عُثْمَانَ نَضَّرَ اللَّهُ وَجْهَهُ ، فَلَمْ يَخْرُجُوا إِلا إِلَى قُبُورِهِمْ “”. العزلة والانفراد لابن أبي الدنيا [ص 18رقم9] ومنهاج السنة النبوية[ج6 ص145] وعنه تلميذه ابن كثير في البداية والنهاية[ج7 ص281]
Ibn bin Abdullah bin Al-Ashja’a said: Men from Ahlu Badr remained in their homes after the assassination of Othman, may Allah brighten his face, and they did not come out except to their graves.
[Al-Ulah wa Al-Infirad ibn abi al Duniyah 18 #9, minhaj al Sunnah 6/145, Student of ibn Katheer al bidayah wal nihayah 7/281.]
Even Ali himself said the following:
وكان بدء أمرنا أنا التقينا والقوم من أهل الشام. والظاهر أن ربنا واحد ونبينا واحد، ودعوتنا في الاسلام واحدة. لا نستزيدهم في الإيمان بالله والتصديق برسوله صلى الله عليه وآله ولا يستزيدوننا. الأمر واحد إلا ما اختلفنا فيه من دم عثمان ونحن منه براء
The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.
[Najhul Balagha Letter 58]
Again, please provide other evidence if you think the above are not accurate.
-
I don't understand why you are saying this, I was not implying that Imam al Hassan would do such a thing.
I was stating the fact. The difference between Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) and Muawiya is clear as daylight. Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) cared for the Muslim Ummah whereas Muawiya was greedy for ruler-ship and only cared for himself. Muawiya the so-called hadi, mahdi and one who guides people had in fact divided the Muslim Ummah. The so-called hadi & mahdi only cared for wealth and worldly things that his obsession for ruler-ship had divided Muslim Ummah and destruction of Muslim Ummah was imminent had Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) not handed the greedy person his desire of ruler-ship.
Ahlul Sunnah often asks us Shi'as when Muawiya's actions are questioned by the latter: If Muawiya was so evil then why did Imam Hassan (a.s) gave up his ruler-ship to Muawiya. If anyone is to be blamed then it should Imam Hassan (a.s) who gave ruler-ship to unworthy person and thus put the fate of Muslim Ummah in the hands of unworthy person!
This sadly is the reasoning of opponents of Shias who in order to save Muawiya's actions start blaming Prophet's (s.a.w.w) Beloved Grandson (a.s).
It was in fact Hikmah of Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) in handing over Ruler-ship to undeserving and unworthy person as by doing so Imam Hassan (a.s) saved Muslim Ummah otherwise Muslim Ummah would had weakened due to division and thus destruction of Muslim Ummah would then had been inevitable.
It was the way of Prophets when situation like this occurred. Understand the Hikmah of Imam Hassan ibn Ali (a.s) from this hadith.
It was narrated from Abu Hurairah that:
The Prophet [SAW] said: "Two women went out with their two children, and the wolf took one of the children from them. They referred their dispute to Prophet Dawud, peace be upon him, and he ruled that (the remaining child) belonged to the older woman. Then they passed by Sulaiman, peace be upon him, and he said: 'How did he judge between you?' She said: 'He ruled that (the child) belongs to the older woman.' Sulaiman said: 'Cut him in half, and give half to one and half to the other.' The older woman said: 'Yes, cut him in half.' The younger woman said: 'Do not cut him, he is her child.' So he ruled that the child belonged to the woman who refused to let him be cut."
Grade: Sahih (Darussalam)
Reference: Sunan an-Nasa'i 5404
In-book reference: Book 49, Hadith 26
English translation: Vol. 6, Book 49, Hadith 5406
1. The child belonged to the younger woman (the right of ruler-ship belonged to Imam Hassan a.s)
2. Nabi Dawud (a.s) ruled the child to be given to older woman (Imam Hassan a.s gave the ruler-ship to Muawiya)
3. Nabi Sulayman (a.s) said cut the child into half and give one half to older woman and another half to younger woman. On this the older woman says, 'Yes, cut him in half' (Muawiya was the one who divided Muslim Ummah into two halves in order to get one half of Muslim Ummah)
4. Younger woman says to give her child to the older woman as cutting her child in half meant the death of her child (Imam Hassan a.s gave the ruler-ship of Muslim Ummah to Muawiya as Imam Hassan a.s knew the division of Muslim in two halves meant the destruction of Muslim Ummah)
5. Nabi Sulayman (a.s) ruled that the child belongs to the woman who refused the child to be cut (Ruler-ship belongs to Imam Hassan a.s who refused to leave Muslim Ummah in division)
I agree that it's hard to find justification for Muawiya's decision, but are you saying that Muawiya had no basis for not pledging allegiance and not recognizing him as a the rightful ruler or he had no basis for fighting Ali back (assuming Ali was not the rightful ruler)?
Muawiya not pledging Imam Ali (a.s), nor recognizing him (a.s) as rightful ruler and fighting him (a.s) back would not make Imam Ali (a.s) illegitimate ruler but would only make Muawiya a rebel
-
Sorry for my late reply. Been busy lately.
These are the evidences as requested on how Sahabas should act during the time of fitna:
الرسول-عليه الصلاة و السلام – قال : (( ستكون فتنة يكون المضطجع فيها خيرا من الجالس ،والجالس خيرا من القائم ،و القائم خيرا من الماشي ،و الماشي خيرا من الساعي ، )) فقالله أبو بكرة : يا رسول الله ما تأمرني ؟ قال : (( من كانت له إبل فليلتحق بإبله ،ومن كانت له غنم فليلتحق بغنمه ،و من كانت له أرض فليلتحق بأرضه ،)) فقال له أبو بكرة: فمن لم يكن له شيء من ذلك ؟ قال : (( فليعمد إلي سيفه فليضربه بحده على حرة ، ثملينجوا ما استطاع النجاء )) .رواه أبو داود في سننه ج4 ص 99 و صححه الشيخ الألباني
Abu Bakrah ibn al-Harith (رضي الله عنه): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: “There will be a Fitnah in which the man who sleeps on his side is better than the man who sits down, and the one who sits is better than the one who stands, and the one who stands is better than the one who walks, and the one who walks is better than the one who marches to war.” So Abu Bakrah said: “O Prophet of Allah, what do you order me?” He replied: “He who has camels let him go take care of them and he who has sheep then let him go take care of them and he who has a land then let him go and take care of it.” Abu Bakrah said: “What about the one who has none of this?” He replied: “Then let him draw his sword and strike its tip against a rock, then keep away and save himself as much as he could.”
[Source: Abu Dawood in his Sunan 4/99, al-Albani said Sahih.]
Nothing new. You repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?
عن أممالك البهزية قالت: قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم :” خير الناس في الفتنةرجل معتزل في ماله يعبد ربه ويؤدي حقه ورجل آخذ برأس فرسه في سبيل الله يخيفهم ويخيفونه”.مسند أحمد ج6 ص419،تعليق شعيب الأرنؤوط : صحيح لغيره
Umm Malik Al-Buhziyah (رضي الله عنها): The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) said: ‘The best of people during the Fitnah is a man who isolates himself and his wealth and prays to his Lord and fulfils his religious obligations, and a Man who holds the rails of his horse (making Jihad) in the cause of Allah and scaring his enemies.’
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 6/419, Al-Arnaout said: Sahih li ghayrihi.]
عن أبي بردة قال دخلت على محمد بن مسلمة فقال إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : (( إنها ستكون فتنة و فرقة و اختلاف ، فإذا كان كذلك فأت بسيفك أُحدا فاضربه حتى ينقطع ، ثم اجلس في بيتك حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية )) ، ثم قال محمد بن مسلمة -أيام الفتنة- : فقد فعلت ما قاله لي رسول الله -عليه الصلاة و السلام.رواه ابن ماجة ج 2 ص 1310 ،قال الشيخ الألباني:صحيح،ورواه الطبراني في المعجم الأوسط ،و رجاله ثقات . الهيثمي : ج 7 ص: 301 .
Abu Bardah (ra) narrated: I entered on Muhammad bin Maslamah so the messenger of Allah (SAWS) said: “There shall be Fitnah and division and conflict, so if this happens then seek the mountain of Uhud with your sword, then hit it with that sword until it’s broken, after this go back to your house and sit until a treacherous hand reaches you or until your life ends.” then Muhammad bin Maslamah said -in the days of Fitnah-: “I have done what the messenger of Allah (SAWS) ordered me.”
[Sources: Sunan ibn Majah 2/1310, al-Albani said: SAHIH. al-Tabarani narrated it in al-Mu`jam al-Awsat and its narrators are trustworthy. al-Haythami narrated it in his Majma` 7/301.]
أن رسول الله -صلى الله عليه و سلم- أعطى سيفا لمحمد بن مسلمة ، -رضيالله عنه – و قال له : (( جاهد بهذا ، في سبيل الله ، فإذا اختلفت أعناق الناس ، فاضرببه الحجر ، ثم ادخل بيتك ، فكن حلسا ملقى ، حتى تأتيك يد خاطئة ، أو منية قاضية)).رواه الطبراني في المعجم الكبير ، و رجاله ثقات ج 7 ص: 301 .
The Prophet (صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم) gave a sword to Muhammad ibn Muslimah and said: “Make Jihad with this but when the people differ then strike the rocks with it, then enter your house until you are assassinated by an evil hand or until your time has come to die.”
[Source: al-Tabarani in al-Mu’ujam al-Kabir 7/301 and its narrators are trustworthy.][/i]
Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadiths given by you?
And the followings were Ali's attitude towards those sahabas who refrained themselves from joining either parties. Never he came up with argument as presented by you:
قالتعديسة بنت أهبان : لما جاء علي بن أبي طالب ههنا البصرة دخل على أبي . فقال يا أبامسلمألا تعينني على هؤلاء القوم ؟ قال بلى . قال فدعا جارية له . فقال ياجارية أخرجي سيفي. قال فأخرجته . فسل منه قدر شبر فإذا هوخشب . فقال:” إن خليلي وابن عمك صلى اللهعليه و سلم عهد إلي إذا كانت الفتنة بين المسلمين . فأتخذ سيفا من خشب” . فإنشئت خرجت معك . قال لاحاجة لي فيك ولا في سيفك .سنن ابن ماجة كتاب الفتن ج 2 ص:1309،قال الشيخ الألباني:حسن صحيح،ومسند أحمد ج 5ص: 69، و ج6 ص: 393 وقال شعيب الأرنؤوط: حديث حسن
‘Udaysah bint Ahban (ra) said: when ‘Ali ibn abi Talib came to us in al-Basarah he entered on my father and said: “O Abu Muslim will you not aid me?” He said: yes, then he told his female servant: “bring me the sword” and she did and when he took it out of its sheath it turned out to be a wooden sword, so he told ‘Ali: “Khalili (my beloved companion) who is your cousin (means the Prophet), may peace be upon him, made me give him an oath that when the Fitnah happens I use this wooden sword, so if you want I will accompany you.” ‘Ali said: “I need not your help nor your sword.”
[Sunan ibn Majah Kitab al-Fitan 2/1309 al-Albani said: Hasan Sahih, Musnad Ahmad 5/69 & 6/393 al-Arnaout said: Hasan.]
My argument was either obey the ruler or refrain from fighting the ruler. Now, can you show me how was my argument different from Imam Ali (a.s) as the hadith presented by you is in agreement with my argument!
حَدَّثَنَا عُمَرُ بْنُ أَيُّوبَ الْمَوْصِلِيُّ، عَنْ جَعْفَرِ بْنِ بُرْقَانَ، عَنْ يَزِيدَ بْنِ الْأَصَمِّ، قَالَ: سُئِلَ عَلِيٌّ عَنْ قَتْلَى يَوْمِ صِفِّينَ، فَقَالَ: " قَتْلَانَا وَقَتَلَاهُمْ فِي الْجَنَّةِ، وَيَصِيرُ الْأَمْرُ إِلَيَّ وَإِلَى مُعَاوِيَةَ "
Narrated by ‘Umar bin Ayyuub Al-Maushiliy, from Ja’far bin Burqaan, from Yaziid bin Al-Asham, he said: ‘Aliy was asked about those who were killed on the day of Siffin, so he said: “Those who were killed among us and among them will be in Jannah. And this matter is between me and Mu’aawiyyah".
[Source: Ibnu Abi Syaibah, 15/302. Sahih].
You mean to say that both killer and killed will be in Jannah? Besides Yaziid bin Al-Asham has anyone heard Imam Ali (a.s) say such a weird thing? Secondly, besides Ibn Abi Shaibah how did others grade this report?
One group consists of Muslim Ruler and people who are obeying the orders of Muslim Ruler and another group is of Rebel and people obeying the orders of that Rebel. How can both be equal and enter Jannah?
Really weird. Muawiya rebelled against the ruler on the pretext of taking Qisas of Uthman whereas Muawiya had no right to rebel against the ruler of his time even if Muawiya did not accept the ruler-ship of Imam Ali (a.s) as Ruler of Muslim Ummah. The fact is Muawiya rebelled against the Ruler and thus became a Rebel. If you don't believe Muawiya is a rebel then provide evidence for this instead of giving your opinion.
Rebels won't enter Jannah with Muslims but they (i.e. Rebels) will enter in Fire with Khawarij who are dogs of Hell-fire.
During the days of Fitnah, `Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) came to Muhammad bin Maslamah (ra) and told him: “Why did you not join in this matter?” so he replied: “Your cousin -meaning the prophet (SAWS)- gave me a sword and said: Fight with it as long as the enemy if being fought, so if you see the people killing one another, then go to a big rock and break the sword, then stick to your house until death comes to you or you are killed.” so `Ali told them (his companions): “Leave him be.”
[Source: Musnad Ahmad 4/225.][/i]
Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?
Even in a Twelvers' source below:
When the Imam [peace be upon him] was about to get ready to head towards Basra to confront the rebels, Saad Ibn Abi Waqqas, Muhammad Ibn Maslamah, Usamah Ibn Zayd and Abdullah Ibn Omar refused to come with him. The Imam (Ali) asked: ‘Why are you not ready for Jihad’? They replied: ‘We are worried that we might spill the blood of a Muslim’. The Imam replied: ‘Are you loyal in regards to the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) you have given to me’? They said: “Yes!” The Imam then told them to go back to their homes and upon that he cited the ‘Hikmah’ number 15 [i.e. Every person who is tempted to go astray, does not deserve punishment.]
Source: Nahj Al-Balagha Farsi translation by Ali Dashti
Again you repeated the second point which I gave i.e. Muslims should not fight any Muslim as fighting Muslim is Kufr during the time of peace as well as during the time of Fitna.
Question is: Why did Muawiya not refrain from fighting back Muslim army headed by Muslim Ruler?
-
Good. We can put other sahabas aside now and conclude that with the words of brother Hani:
Many people did not pledge and some were major Sahabah, the reason they were aware of the Ahadith of Fitnah and since `Ali was involved in it they abstained. Otherwise, they'd be ordered to fight other Muslims which is a thing they were warned against in many Hadiths.
All I'm saying is, things back then were not clear as you think they were.
And now, the focus is on Muawiyya.
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadiths given by you?
Question is: Why did Muawiya not abide by the order of Prophet (s.a.w.w) stated in the hadith given by you?
Question is: Why did Muawiya not refrain from fighting back Muslim army headed by Muslim Ruler?
Did the ahadith reach Muawiyya? I don't know. If the ahadith reached him, did he think that he is in the time of fitnah? I don't know.
That's why I said a few times previously that "hindsight is 20/20". It is easier for someone who comes after conclusion of an event and asks "why didn't he do this and why didn't he do that". Very easy and seems like you fail to understand that.
But one thing we know coming from the mouth of Muawiyya is this:
In Siyar A'alam An-Nabula" written by Ad-Dahabi:
قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله، إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، وأسلم له فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه .
Ya'la bin Ubaid, from his father narrated that Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people went to Mauwiya and asked, "Do you dispute Hadhrat Ali? Are you his equal?" He (Muawiya) replied, "No, I am not, and I know that he is better than me and deserves this (Caliphate) more than me, but don't you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him." So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn't hand them (the killers).
[Al-Ju'fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book "Siffeen"]
If you are not satisfied with that, why don't you go and dig the grave of Muawiyya, bring him back to life and ask that question to him directly!
For us Ahlus Sunnah, in the words of brother Husayn in another thread:
"the fitnah is a specific event that occurred at a specific time and with a specific context, which is the killing of 'Uthman (ra) and what to do about it".
It was done and dusted and becoming a piece of history now and nobody will hold responsible except those involved. That's why some of the imams of Ahlus Sunnah said the followings:
One
A man asked Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullaah) about what happened between ‘Ali and Mu‘aawiyah (May Allaah be pleased with them), and he turned away from him. It was said to him: O Abu ‘Abdullah, he is a man from Banu Haashim. He turned to him and said: Recite: “That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do” [al-Baqarah 2:134].
[Source: Manaaqib al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 126]
Two
Imam Ahmad also said, after it was said to him: What do you say about what happened between ‘Ali and Mu‘aawiyah (May Allaah be pleased with them)? He said: I do not say anything about them except what is best.
[Source: Manaaqib al-Imam Ahmad by Ibn al-Jawzi, p. 164]
Easily to understand the stand of Ahmad ibn Hanbal above as Allah (Exalted be He) says:
"And those who came after them say: “Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.”
[Qur’an 59:10]
Three
‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez (rahimahullaah) was asked about ‘Ali and ‘Uthmaan (May Allaah be pleased with them), and the battles of the Camel and Siffeen, and what happened among them. He said: That is blood that Allah caused me to have no hand in shedding, and I do not want to dip my tongue in it (by talking about it).
[Source: at-Tabaqaat al-Kubra, 5/394]
And to you Twelvers, the fitnah is an issue of 'aqeedah or the fundamentals of the faith. You have to adamantly say what you are supposed to say about Muawiyya in order to defend your belief in the imamah.
-
I was stating the fact.
Yes, but it gave me the impression as if you responded to something from me as if I stated the opposite or implied the opposite, that is why I didn't understand your comment. In any case, I certainly do not agree with everything you stated but my hypothetical example has created more confusion so just forget about it.
Muawiya not pledging Imam Ali (a.s), nor recognizing him (a.s) as rightful ruler and fighting him (a.s) back would not make Imam Ali (a.s) illegitimate ruler but would only make Muawiya a rebel
You are not responding to my comment. What Muawiya's decision would make him or not make him according to the principles of Sunni's him is another issue.
You have to be more specific with your questions because the question you state is already answered, I think. Your question if I'm not mistaken is first: Was Muawiya wrong in his decisions and did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ) according to the principles of Sunni's? The answer you already have is yes.
Then your second question seemed to be, along the lines of 'If Muwaiya's decisions were wrong according to the principles of Sunni's, why did he decide what he decided?' The answer you already have is because Sunni's believe he made wrong ijtihad and according to his own understanding he was not disobeying the Prophet (ﷺ).
Then the question seemed to be 'How can it be wrong ijtihad?' The answer you already have is because the matter was not so clear at that time.
From here it starts to get fuzzy, because it seems you want to argue for something instead of asking a question. Apparently you disagree with the belief of Sunni's and not only do you disagree, apparently you want to argue that Sunni's should not believe the matter was not clear if they follow their own principles, but you have to be more specific. Do you want to argue or do you have a question? If you want to question, which specific question do you have because it does not help this thread to repeat previous questions.
Is it 'what were the reasons for the matter not being clear according to the principles of Sunni's?'
Is it 'what was Muawiya's understanding and reasoning?' more specifically 'why did Muawiya consider the right of Qisas to be a reason for not pledging allegiance?'
Is it 'what is the basis for Muawiya's ijtihad?'
Is it something else?
Generally though I will say that Sunni's do not have all the answers to the questions you may have, but they do believe in the proper intentions of the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). To give you an example that might be better is not hypothetical, Abdullah ibn Abbas believed in the permissibility of mutah. There is evidence of him being reminded of the Prophet's prohibition yet he remained on this stance. If you would ask Sunni's about this, they will tell you that it is wrong. If you ask why did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ), they will say he made wrong ijtihad. If you would ask, how did he come to this stance despite the clear Prophetic order, most will say they don't know. However, they will not assume he was just stubborn and he didn't want to change his stance. They will not assume he had a lust for women and deliberately disobeyed the Prophet (ﷺ). It is similar for Muawiya according to Sunni's
-
In Siyar A'alam An-Nabula" written by Ad-Dahabi:
قال الجعفي: حدثنا يعلى بن عبيد، عن أبيه، قال: جاء أبو مسلم الخولاني وأناس إلى معاوية، وقالوا: أنت تنازع عليا أم أنت مثله ؟ فقال: لا والله، إني لاعلم أنه أفضل مني وأحق بالامر مني، ولكن ألستم تعلمون أن عثمان قتل مظلوما، وأنا ابن عمه، والطالب بدمه، فائتوه، فقولوا له، فليدفع إلي قتلة عثمان، وأسلم له فأتوا عليا، فكلموه، فلم يدفعهم إليه .
Ya'la bin Ubaid, from his father narrated that Abu Muslim Al-Khawlani and a group of people went to Mauwiya and asked, "Do you dispute Hadhrat Ali? Are you his equal?" He (Muawiya) replied, "No, I am not, and I know that he is better than me and deserves this (Caliphate) more than me, but don't you know that Uthman was killed unjustly, and that I am his cousin, and that I ask for his blood? So go to him (Ali), and tell him to bring forth the killers of Uthman, and I will submit to him." So, they went to Ali, and spoke to him, but he didn't hand them (the killers).
[Al-Ju'fi (Yahya bin Sulaiman, from his book "Siffeen"]
Did Muawiyah or anyone have the right to have their demands met through violence and threatening behaviour? Did the Caliph (Ali) know who the killers were and if you do then do you hand them over on someone's demand or put them to a fair trial and punish them which is the job of the state and Muawiyya? To offer submission or allegiance do you put demands forward and if they're not fullfilled then do you turn towards violence? Don't you think it's time we woke up!
-
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I think the point here is quite clear for everyone to see. The Shi'i worldview is contingent upon fitnah. Taking the dark moments of fitnah out of Islam is like taking the wind out of their (Shias') sails.
Honestly, what feeds off chaos offers nothing but chaos. What thrives on gloom is gloomy in of itself!
-
The problem with the Ahle Sunah is they look at a situation and matter then make principles and decide on that, so every situation and matter will have its own different set of Principles and is looked at differently,
rather than having principles, rules and regulations in place be it governance or faith or belief then looking at and dealing with situations, incidents, matters or problems based on those principles.
Just to make this simple the Ahle Sunah have DOUBLE STANDARDS in all and everything.
-
Conclusion:
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of going against Quran and Sunnah of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of rebellion against legitimate Muslim Ruler
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of killing Muslims.
Just because Muawiya is a Sahabi all his actions are forgiven and thus whenever historians & researchers look into the Seerah of Muawiya they should consider the Fitna caused by Muawiya to be mystery, unknown, unclear, etc.
Did the ahadith reach Muawiyya? I don't know. If the ahadith reached him, did he think that he is in the time of fitnah? I don't know.
I also doubt that Muawiya knew about the hadiths as Muawiya was more concerned about the food rather than listening to what Prophet (s.a.w.w) had to say to him.
Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6298:
Ibn Abbas reported: I was playing with children that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Holy Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu'awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu'swiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means" he patted my shoulders".
But as Katib e Quran Muawiya would had known following Verse:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:93)
-
Yes, but it gave me the impression as if you responded to something from me as if I stated the opposite or implied the opposite, that is why I didn't understand your comment. In any case, I certainly do not agree with everything you stated but my hypothetical example has created more confusion so just forget about it.
You are not responding to my comment. What Muawiya's decision would make him or not make him according to the principles of Sunni's him is another issue.
You have to be more specific with your questions because the question you state is already answered, I think. Your question if I'm not mistaken is first: Was Muawiya wrong in his decisions and did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ) according to the principles of Sunni's? The answer you already have is yes.
Then your second question seemed to be, along the lines of 'If Muwaiya's decisions were wrong according to the principles of Sunni's, why did he decide what he decided?' The answer you already have is because Sunni's believe he made wrong ijtihad and according to his own understanding he was not disobeying the Prophet (ﷺ).
Then the question seemed to be 'How can it be wrong ijtihad?' The answer you already have is because the matter was not so clear at that time.
From here it starts to get fuzzy, because it seems you want to argue for something instead of asking a question. Apparently you disagree with the belief of Sunni's and not only do you disagree, apparently you want to argue that Sunni's should not believe the matter was not clear if they follow their own principles, but you have to be more specific. Do you want to argue or do you have a question? If you want to question, which specific question do you have because it does not help this thread to repeat previous questions.
Is it 'what were the reasons for the matter not being clear according to the principles of Sunni's?'
Is it 'what was Muawiya's understanding and reasoning?' more specifically 'why did Muawiya consider the right of Qisas to be a reason for not pledging allegiance?'
Is it 'what is the basis for Muawiya's ijtihad?'
Is it something else?
Generally though I will say that Sunni's do not have all the answers to the questions you may have, but they do believe in the proper intentions of the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ). To give you an example that might be better is not hypothetical, Abdullah ibn Abbas believed in the permissibility of mutah. There is evidence of him being reminded of the Prophet's prohibition yet he remained on this stance. If you would ask Sunni's about this, they will tell you that it is wrong. If you ask why did he disobey the Prophet (ﷺ), they will say he made wrong ijtihad. If you would ask, how did he come to this stance despite the clear Prophetic order, most will say they don't know. However, they will not assume he was just stubborn and he didn't want to change his stance. They will not assume he had a lust for women and deliberately disobeyed the Prophet (ﷺ). It is similar for Muawiya according to Sunni's
Okay. I will ask 3 questions.
1. When should a person do Ijtihad?
2. Which person can be considered Mujtahid besides Hakam?
3. Can a person put a condition in giving bayah to the Ruler? If yes, then is that condition applicable to only one Ruler or all Rulers? i.e. Muawiya put forward the condition of Qisas of Uthman when asked to give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but when Muawiya himself became ruler no such condition was put forward by people when asked to give bayah to Muawiya.
People gave bayah to Muawiya without demanding Qisas of Uthman whereas in the case of Imam Ali (a.s) people demanded Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah. Why this inconsistency?
Is there any evidence of people demanding Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah to Muawiya and Muawiya complying with the demands of people and punishing assassins of Uthman?
-
Okay. I will ask 3 questions.
1. When should a person do Ijtihad?
This basically answers that:
It was narrated from Shuraih that:
He wrote to 'Umar, to ask him (a question), and 'Umar wrote back to him telling him: "Judge according to what is in the Book of Allah. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah, then (judge) according to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW]. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW], then pass judgment according to the way the righteous passed judgment. If it is not (mentioned) in the Book of Allah, or the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah [SAW], and the righteous did not pass judgment concerning it, then if you wish, go ahead (and try to work it out by yourself) or if you wish, leave it. And I think that leaving it is better for you. And peace be upon you."
2. Which person can be considered Mujtahid besides Hakam?
Basically anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently
3. Can a person put a condition in giving bayah to the Ruler? If yes, then is that condition applicable to only one Ruler or all Rulers? i.e. Muawiya put forward the condition of Qisas of Uthman when asked to give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but when Muawiya himself became ruler no such condition was put forward by people when asked to give bayah to Muawiya.
As a decision maker you mean? Basically yes, there is no explicit order that forbids you from doing that. However the condition can not be contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah and there must be a great interest served by that, that supersedes the interest served by not placing a condition and giving bayah directly if other decision makers have already preceded in given bayah without such a condition. This is what Sunni's later on realized, agreed upon and canonized more or less that such interests rarely exist. But again, this was later on.
As for another ruler, it is at the discretion of the decision makers if you again want to put that condition, so if they feel that such interest does not apply anymore or does not supersede other interests, they may forego placing such a condition.
People gave bayah to Muawiya without demanding Qisas of Uthman whereas in the case of Imam Ali (a.s) people demanded Qisas of Uthman before giving bayah. Why this inconsistency?
It is not inconsistent if they viewed placing such a condition for Muawiya (at a later point in time, don't forget) not serving any interest anymore or not serving it enough to supersede the interests of giving bayah directly.
I have a feeling that you will not be satisfied with such answers until someone gives a detailed explanation of what was going on. The problem is, we can only speculate. One problem during the time that I think you are overlooking and could be one factor is the following:
First of all, the murderer of Uthman was not known specifically. However, many people were responsible for it and they joined Ali's army. One factor in Muawiya's reasoning could be that they should be punished, not necessarily through their death as they were not murderers per se, but not letting them benefit from their actions. One of the greatest benefits of the death of Uthman was their gaining of power and influence under Ali. If you want to couple this to an Islamic principle, Sunni's believe that a murderer can't inherit from the murdered. So Muawiya was basically telling Ali to get rid of these rebels and take away their power and influence. Ali by his own admission could not do this because they were too strong and would led to civil war. This was unacceptable for Muawiya because this basically meant that Ali could not assert his authority. He was basically telling him, how can you demand obedience from me if the very people who pledged allegiance are not even obedient to you. If you can't assert authority then you are not fit to rule in the first place. It's actually one of the conditions of Sunni's as well that a ruler must be sane, must be physically well and must not be a captive. Muawiya was basically telling him that he is held hostage by his own army and therefore as long as that is the case, obedience to him is not obligatory.
And if you look at the popular account of how the Battle of Siffin unfolded, you can see how disobedient they were. The armies of Ali and Muawiya camped at Siffin and Ali was still negotiating. His army attacked and Muawiya fought back. Ali didn't gave orders to do that but saw himself forced to start the battle. When the armies called for arbitration, Ali ordered them to continue, they didn't listen and wanted arbitration. Ali saw himself forced to accept arbitration. Ali wanted to send Abdullah ibn Abbas as arbitrator or someone else, they wanted Abu Musa al Ashari. Ali saw himself forced to listen. Abu Musa al Ashari declared Ali to step down, he couldn't accept. Now his army declared him a kafir for allowing arbitration in the first place! Ali saw himself forced to attack them in Nahrawan. This is exactly what Muawiya didn't want in Shaam, because they were inherently rebellious and anarchistic and their power had to be taken away.
To come back to your question, this also explains why such a condition was not necessary for Muawiya, because they were never part of his army and had influence or power over him, not to mention that a lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan.
-
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of going against Quran and Sunnah of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
....said no one ever! What we do say is that Allah (swt) will deal with him justly - as is His Nature - while admitting that Muawiya was wrong (whereas Imam Ali was right).
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of rebellion against legitimate Muslim Ruler
If Imam Ali (ra) can withhold bayah to Abu Bakr (ra) for not being consulted then Muawiya has every right to withhold bayah to Imam Ali (ra) over qisas of Uthman (ra). And you, as a Shi'i, should be the first person to defend Muawiya's "right" to make bayah conditional because it was Imam Ali (ra) who set the precedence.
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of killing Muslims.
What we say is that because Muawiya is a Sahabi, we will not speak ill of him, like you do. And while his actions led to the killing of Muslims, would you also - in the same breath - mention the hundreds of square miles of land he conquered thereby bringing hundreds of thousands into the fold of Islam? Or do you have a one-track mind?
Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6298:
Ibn Abbas reported: I was playing with children that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Holy Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu'awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu'swiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means" he patted my shoulders".
Where does it say that Ibn Abbas (ra) informed Muawiya that the Prophet (saw) wished to see him? Unless I'm mistaken, I can see Ibn Abbas (ra) torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal. Does it say anywhere (in this particular narration) that Muawiya refused to come because he was busy eating food? If you had an ounce of honesty, you would realize that you are programmed to insert your own hatred into every narration regarding certain people and ask for repentance.
-
This basically answers that:
Okay, so one is to do ijtihad when he does not find judgement regarding the issue/matter he is facing at present in al-Quran and Sunnah. This means that there can be no ijtihad regarding an issue where one can find clear commandments in al-Quran and Sunnah?
If yes, then in al-Quran ALLAH (SWT) has clearly mentioned believers to obey those in authority and if there is disagreement between believers and those in authority then the matter should be referred to ALLAH (SWT) and the Messenger (s.a.w.w). Messenger (s.a.w.w) has clearly commanded believers not to fight Muslim rulers and also not to fight each other both in times of peace and Fitna.
Basically anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently
Is there any hadith stating this i.e. anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently.
As of yet I have only seen one hadith where a person can perform ijtihad and that person is Hakam.
As a decision maker you mean? Basically yes, there is no explicit order that forbids you from doing that. However the condition can not be contradictory to the Qur'an and Sunnah and there must be a great interest served by that, that supersedes the interest served by not placing a condition and giving bayah directly if other decision makers have already preceded in given bayah without such a condition. This is what Sunni's later on realized, agreed upon and canonized more or less that such interests rarely exist. But again, this was later on.
As for another ruler, it is at the discretion of the decision makers if you again want to put that condition, so if they feel that such interest does not apply anymore or does not supersede other interests, they may forego placing such a condition.
Muhajirun and Ansar had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) without placing any condition. Muawiya was from Ṭulaqāʾ (Arabic: طُلَقاء) and thus not part of group who were considered decision makers i.e. Muhajirun and Ansar.
Secondly, Battle of Jamal had taken place after Battle of Siffin and opponents of Imam Ali (a.s) regretted taking part in the battle of Jamal after they realized that battle had no positive outcome. They considered Qisas of Uthman to be genuine legal right but after the battle (of Jamal) they saw that it was creating more Fitna as Muslims were divided in two groups and fighting one another.
Muawiya after seeing the aftermaths of Battle of Jamal should had abandoned the condition of Qisas and given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) in the interest of Muslim Ummah.
It is not inconsistent if they viewed placing such a condition for Muawiya (at a later point in time, don't forget) not serving any interest anymore or not serving it enough to supersede the interests of giving bayah directly.
I have a feeling that you will not be satisfied with such answers until someone gives a detailed explanation of what was going on. The problem is, we can only speculate. One problem during the time that I think you are overlooking and could be one factor is the following:
First of all, the murderer of Uthman was not known specifically. However, many people were responsible for it and they joined Ali's army. One factor in Muawiya's reasoning could be that they should be punished, not necessarily through their death as they were not murderers per se, but not letting them benefit from their actions. One of the greatest benefits of the death of Uthman was their gaining of power and influence under Ali. If you want to couple this to an Islamic principle, Sunni's believe that a murderer can't inherit from the murdered. So Muawiya was basically telling Ali to get rid of these rebels and take away their power and influence. Ali by his own admission could not do this because they were too strong and would led to civil war. This was unacceptable for Muawiya because this basically meant that Ali could not assert his authority. He was basically telling him, how can you demand obedience from me if the very people who pledged allegiance are not even obedient to you. If you can't assert authority then you are not fit to rule in the first place. It's actually one of the conditions of Sunni's as well that a ruler must be sane, must be physically well and must not be a captive. Muawiya was basically telling him that he is held hostage by his own army and therefore as long as that is the case, obedience to him is not obligatory.
And if you look at the popular account of how the Battle of Siffin unfolded, you can see how disobedient they were. The armies of Ali and Muawiya camped at Siffin and Ali was still negotiating. His army attacked and Muawiya fought back. Ali didn't gave orders to do that but saw himself forced to start the battle. When the armies called for arbitration, Ali ordered them to continue, they didn't listen and wanted arbitration. Ali saw himself forced to accept arbitration. Ali wanted to send Abdullah ibn Abbas as arbitrator or someone else, they wanted Abu Musa al Ashari. Ali saw himself forced to listen. Abu Musa al Ashari declared Ali to step down, he couldn't accept. Now his army declared him a kafir for allowing arbitration in the first place! Ali saw himself forced to attack them in Nahrawan. This is exactly what Muawiya didn't want in Shaam, because they were inherently rebellious and anarchistic and their power had to be taken away.
If it is as you say so then why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down from the seat of ruler-ship if he a.s (according to you) was held hostage by his (a.s) own army?
To come back to your question, this also explains why such a condition was not necessary for Muawiya, because they were never part of his army and had influence or power over him, not to mention that a lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan.
If lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan then what was the reason of Muawiya not giving bayah to newly appointed Caliph i.e. Imam Hassan (a.s)? What was the reason of Muawiya fighting with Imam Hassan (a.s)?
-
....said no one ever! What we do say is that Allah (swt) will deal with him justly - as is His Nature - while admitting that Muawiya was wrong (whereas Imam Ali was right).
Yes. I also agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman) were Right whereas Muawiya and his army (consisting of people demanding Qisas of 'Uthman) were Wrong.
If Imam Ali (ra) can withhold bayah to Abu Bakr (ra) for not being consulted then Muawiya has every right to withhold bayah to Imam Ali (ra) over qisas of Uthman (ra). And you, as a Shi'i, should be the first person to defend Muawiya's "right" to make bayah conditional because it was Imam Ali (ra) who set the precedence.
Two things worth mentioning:
- Ahlul Sunnah authentic reports mention that Imam Ali (a.s) publicly gave bayah to Abu Bakr after six months whereas Muawiya never gave bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)
- There is not even one authentic report of Ahlul Sunnah which mentions that Imam Ali (a.s) rebelled against Abu Bakr whereas Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (a.s)
What we say is that because Muawiya is a Sahabi, we will not speak ill of him, like you do. And while his actions led to the killing of Muslims, would you also - in the same breath - mention the hundreds of square miles of land he conquered thereby bringing hundreds of thousands into the fold of Islam? Or do you have a one-track mind?
And Muawiya wanted to enforce his son Yazid upon those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam by ending the Shura system and introducing Monarchy in Islam. I can't imagine how delighted those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam would be when they got to know that Yazid was going to be their new King.
Where does it say that Ibn Abbas (ra) informed Muawiya that the Prophet (saw) wished to see him? Unless I'm mistaken, I can see Ibn Abbas (ra) torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal. Does it say anywhere (in this particular narration) that Muawiya refused to come because he was busy eating food? If you had an ounce of honesty, you would realize that you are programmed to insert your own hatred into every narration regarding certain people and ask for repentance.
Poor innocent Muawiya. He was unaware of the fact that Prophet (s.a.w.w) called him twice but because of ibn Abbas who was torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal he (i.e. Muawiya) got cursed by the Prophet (s.a.w.w).
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.
In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.
-
Secondly, Battle of Jamal had taken place after Battle of Siffin and opponents of Imam Ali (a.s) regretted taking part in the battle of Jamal after they realized that battle had no positive outcome. They considered Qisas of Uthman to be genuine legal right but after the battle (of Jamal) they saw that it was creating more Fitna as Muslims were divided in two groups and fighting one another.
I made typing mistake. I intended to write Battle of Jamal had taken place before Battle of Siffin. I was unable to edit the post so I am mentioning it here.
-
Yes. I also agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman) were Right whereas Muawiya and his army (consisting of people demanding Qisas of 'Uthman) were Wrong.
....whereas I look at Imam Ali (ra) and Muawiya independently of those who claimed to be part of their army, cause and struggle.
Two things worth mentioning:
- Ahlul Sunnah authentic reports mention that Imam Ali (a.s) publicly gave bayah to Abu Bakr after six months whereas Muawiya never gave bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)
- There is not even one authentic report of Ahlul Sunnah which mentions that Imam Ali (a.s) rebelled against Abu Bakr whereas Muawiya rebelled against Imam Ali (a.s)
Two points to refute your non-worthy points:
- The point is that Imam Ali (ra) set the precedence of withholding bayah. Since Conman accuses us of inconsistency, I wonder what prevents you from defending Muawiya's right to withhold bayah. After all, he was following in the footsteps of your infallible 1st Imam (ra).
- Well, according to you, Imam Ali (ra) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel. And let us not forget, as someone already pointed out, it was Imam Ali (ra) that brought an army against Muawiya.
And Muawiya wanted to enforce his son Yazid upon those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam by ending the Shura system and introducing Monarchy in Islam. I can't imagine how delighted those Hundreds of Thousands brought into the fold of Islam would be when they got to know that Yazid was going to be their new King.
Like every Shi'i, you just cannot seem to keep things in their place. You have to throw everything in the mix. I bet onions go very well with milkshake for you. Did you ever pause to even think that perhaps the newly-converted had no concern for "shura" or "monarchy"? They were not indoctrinated like your lot are!
Poor innocent Muawiya. He was unaware of the fact that Prophet (s.a.w.w) called him twice but because of ibn Abbas who was torn between executing the Prophet's (saw) command of summoning Muawiya and interrupting Muawiya's meal he (i.e. Muawiya) got cursed by the Prophet (s.a.w.w).
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.
In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.
Thus far, you have not been able to prove that Muawiya gave preference to food over the wish of the Prophet (saw) to want to see him. There is not even a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya.
Moving on, I wonder if your scholars do not know Arabic or lie to you all intentionally. Maybe they do not care but they leave you to look stupid out in the real world. "May Allah not fill his belly" is an Arabic saying which actually is the equivalent of saying, "may your sustenance be without end (endless sustenance)". Unless you prove me wrong, I see that as a du'a, not curse!
-
Okay, so one is to do ijtihad when he does not find judgement regarding the issue/matter he is facing at present in al-Quran and Sunnah. This means that there can be no ijtihad regarding an issue where one can find clear commandments in al-Quran and Sunnah?
If yes, then in al-Quran ALLAH (SWT) has clearly mentioned believers to obey those in authority and if there is disagreement between believers and those in authority then the matter should be referred to ALLAH (SWT) and the Messenger (s.a.w.w). Messenger (s.a.w.w) has clearly commanded believers not to fight Muslim rulers and also not to fight each other both in times of peace and Fitna.
Of course.
Because according to Muawiya such commandments were not judged to be applicable because Allah(swt) gave them permission to fight others if they transgressed upon them:
وَإِن طَائِفَتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِن بَغَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا عَلَى الْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَاتِلُوا الَّتِي تَبْغِي حَتَّىٰ تَفِيءَ إِلَىٰ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن فَاءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا بَيْنَهُمَا بِالْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوا ۖ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ
Sahih International
And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah . And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.
Since Ali and Muawiya didn't fight yet and were still negotiating, being attacked by Ali's army, Muawiya understood Ali's army to be the transgressors and that Allah permitted him to fight back.
Is there any hadith stating this i.e. anyone who has sufficient knowledge in various branches and can perform ijtihad independently.
As of yet I have only seen one hadith where a person can perform ijtihad and that person is Hakam.
Sorry, which narration are you talking about?
Muhajirun and Ansar had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) without placing any condition. Muawiya was from Ṭulaqāʾ (Arabic: طُلَقاء) and thus not part of group who were considered decision makers i.e. Muhajirun and Ansar.
Secondly, Battle of Jamal had taken place before Battle of Siffin and opponents of Imam Ali (a.s) regretted taking part in the battle of Jamal after they realized that battle had no positive outcome. They considered Qisas of Uthman to be genuine legal right but after the battle (of Jamal) they saw that it was creating more Fitna as Muslims were divided in two groups and fighting one another.
Muawiya after seeing the aftermaths of Battle of Jamal should had abandoned the condition of Qisas and given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) in the interest of Muslim Ummah.
Muawiya obviously saw himself as a decision maker because he was a governor under Uthman and held sway over a large part of the population. The decision makers were not only Muhajirun and Ansar, I haven't seen anything explicit about this. The decision makers are those who have enough influence and power over others so that they can cause people to unite and prevent them from descending into anarchy.
Of course, Muawiyah should have never made that condition in the first place, but again we are not talking about what should have happened. Why didn't he, do you ask? First of all, the battle of Jamal occurred because the opponents of Ali moved towards Ali's army. Muawiya never did that and he didn't intend to attack Ali, he only didn't want to pledge allegiance to him. Secondly, some of the opponents of Ali were actually those who pledged allegiance to him, so people who pledged allegiance to Ali were fighting each other and Muawiya may have seen this as another confirmation of Ali, not being able to assert his authority and that this matter had to be dealt with.
If it is as you say so then why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down from the seat of ruler-ship if he a.s (according to you) was held hostage by his (a.s) own army?
According to me? So I try to prevent speculating about what Muawiya was thinking, but seeing that that is actually what you are interested in and in trying to respond to that interest you return the favor by saying that this according to me?
Anyway, Imam Ali (a.s.) obviously didn't think he was held hostage.
If lot of them died in the battles of al Jamal, Siffin and Nahrawan then what was the reason of Muawiya not giving bayah to newly appointed Caliph i.e. Imam Hassan (a.s)? What was the reason of Muawiya fighting with Imam Hassan (a.s)?
There are a lot of difference's between Ali's Caliphate and al Hassan's
First of all, a lot of them doesn't mean all of them.
Secondly, they themselves may have died but they have created a culture were such rebellious ways were copied by others(who for example killed Ali, robbed and stabbed al Hassan etc.) so they were replaced by people who were equally or more anarchistic. It wasn't just about the murder of Uthman, Muawiya simply distrusted them. The murder of Uthman was a confirmation of that and gave him a legal basis for opposing them. He was generally suspicious of people who could not keep order as he saw them as fitnah makers if given the opportunity. He also saw this as a violation of the Prophet's command to keep the Caliphate to the Quraysh, which according to him probably didn't only mean the Caliph himself but the entire power structure as others would cause fitnah. It was after all his father who wanted to depose Abu Bakr and help Ali. They distrusted lower clans of Quraysh to keep order, let alone bedouins and Egyptians etc. It wasn't as much about Ali or al Hassan as it was about these people.
Thirdly, after Abu Musa al Ashari's blunder, Ali was supposed to have stepped down and therefore Muawiya had a legal basis for being declared Caliph himself. Since Muawiya preceded al Hassan in being declared Caliph, al Hassan's case, according to Muawiya was not so strong.
Fourth, even if Ali was the Caliph, he didn't appoint his son. Shia's may believe so and may even believe that the Prophet (ﷺ) did so, but I don't think there is good evidence from the reports of Sunni's that Ali did.
Fifthly, al Hassan didn't have as much support as Ali (ra). The supporters of Ali in Kufa after Ali's death pledged allegiance to him, but is there evidence that the Muhajirun and Ansar in Medinah did as well? I don't know, I have to double check.
Lastly, by this time, seeing how a part of Ali's army behaved, Muawiya completely lost faith in the competence of Ali to control them and had even less in al Hassan that he could. Remember, al Hassan was wounded by them and robbed him of his possessions. Some accounts go even so far that they took the prayer mat beneath him while he was sitting on it.
-
....whereas I look at Imam Ali (ra) and Muawiya independently of those who claimed to be part of their army, cause and struggle.
According to the hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) the group (i.e. army of Imam Ali a.s) which would fight Khawarij would be more nearer to the truth than another group (i.e. army of Muawiya)
Its strange that army more nearer to the truth consists of rebellious people than the army free from rebellious people
Two points to refute your non-worthy points:
That is two irrefutable points ;D
- The point is that Imam Ali (ra) set the precedence of withholding bayah. Since Conman accuses us of inconsistency, I wonder what prevents you from defending Muawiya's right to withhold bayah. After all, he was following in the footsteps of your infallible 1st Imam (ra).
I quote what Hani mentioned in his book KITAB-ul-SAQIFAH regarding the bayah of Imam Ali (a.s) to Abu Bakr
I say: `Ali’s oath of fidelity came very late and most people had left the mosque thinking `Ali boycotted. `Ali would later be preoccupied with the final burial preparations of the Messenger (saw), followed by the problems of prophetic-inheritance that increased tensions between the Caliph and banu Hashim and finally the sickness of Fatimah peace be upon her. All of this caused some people to assume that `Ali did not pledge allegiance or that he disapproves of Abu Bakr’s leadership. However, `Ali’s early pledge of allegiance is authentically reported and widely transmitted in popular history books therefore it cannot be denied.
- Well, according to you, Imam Ali (ra) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel. And let us not forget, as someone already pointed out, it was Imam Ali (ra) that brought an army against Muawiya.
- Imam Ali (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel in the same way as Nabi Haroon (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel against Samiri.
- Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army against Muawiya in accordance with commandments of ALLAH (SWT) i.e. to fight rebels until they submit to the Command of ALLAH (SWT)
Like every Shi'i, you just cannot seem to keep things in their place. You have to throw everything in the mix. I bet onions go very well with milkshake for you. Did you ever pause to even think that perhaps the newly-converted had no concern for "shura" or "monarchy"? They were not indoctrinated like your lot are!
Did those newly Hundreds of Thousands Muslims think differently from rest of the Muslims? If monarchy was not an issue then what was the reason of avoiding the bayah of Yazid by Imam Hussayn (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr in Medina?
Thus far, you have not been able to prove that Muawiya gave preference to food over the wish of the Prophet (saw) to want to see him. There is not even a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya.
Moving on, I wonder if your scholars do not know Arabic or lie to you all intentionally. Maybe they do not care but they leave you to look stupid out in the real world. "May Allah not fill his belly" is an Arabic saying which actually is the equivalent of saying, "may your sustenance be without end (endless sustenance)". Unless you prove me wrong, I see that as a du'a, not curse!
I quote from the article by TwelverShia.net Response to: Rasool Allah’s Curse upon Muawiyyah
Link: www.twelvershia.net/2014/12/11/response-to-rasool-allahs-curse-upon-muawiyyah/
...Surely, the offense that Mu’awiyah committed is not worthy of eternal damnation.
If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya commit the offense? ???
...In other words, the simple fact that the Prophet (salalahu alaihi wa salam) invoked Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) to prevent Mu’awiyah from being full does not mean that Mu’awiyah is a kafir, but rather, that he disobeyed an order.
If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya disobey an order? ???
-
Of course.
Because according to Muawiya such commandments were not judged to be applicable because Allah(swt) gave them permission to fight others if they transgressed upon them:Since Ali and Muawiya didn't fight yet and were still negotiating, being attacked by Ali's army, Muawiya understood Ali's army to be the transgressors and that Allah permitted him to fight back.
Even if I assume what you said is true I want to ask one question:
- At present it is accepted by both Shias and Ahlul Sunnah that Muawiya's qiyās was wrong regarding fighting back Muslim Ruler's Army. My question: would Muawiya's killing of any single Muslim (who was in the Army of Imam Ali a.s) cause ALLAH'S (SWT) Wrath and Curse to descend upon him (i.e. Muawiya) as per the Ayat of Surah an-Nisa?
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:93)
Sorry, which narration are you talking about?
Amr ibn al-‘As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6919, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1716
Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim
عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
6919 صحيح البخاري كتاب الاعتصام بالكتاب والسنة باب أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ
1716 صحيح مسلم كتاب الأقضية باب بيان أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ
Muawiya obviously saw himself as a decision maker because he was a governor under Uthman and held sway over a large part of the population. The decision makers were not only Muhajirun and Ansar, I haven't seen anything explicit about this. The decision makers are those who have enough influence and power over others so that they can cause people to unite and prevent them from descending into anarchy.
Of course, Muawiyah should have never made that condition in the first place, but again we are not talking about what should have happened. Why didn't he, do you ask? First of all, the battle of Jamal occurred because the opponents of Ali moved towards Ali's army. Muawiya never did that and he didn't intend to attack Ali, he only didn't want to pledge allegiance to him. Secondly, some of the opponents of Ali were actually those who pledged allegiance to him, so people who pledged allegiance to Ali were fighting each other and Muawiya may have seen this as another confirmation of Ali, not being able to assert his authority and that this matter had to be dealt with.
Muawiya may think whatever he likes but he is not allowed to act against al-Quran and Sunnah.
Quran and Sunnah clearly mentions to obey those in authority and never to fight (or fight back) Muslim Ruler. Muawiya would be held accountable for his actions going against al-Quran and Sunnah.
According to me? So I try to prevent speculating about what Muawiya was thinking, but seeing that that is actually what you are interested in and in trying to respond to that interest you return the favor by saying that this according to me?
Anyway, Imam Ali (a.s.) obviously didn't think he was held hostage.
If Imam Ali (a.s) didn't think he was held hostage by his own (a.s) army then Muawiya thinking otherwise carries no weight. Muawiya should had pledged allegiance to legitimate Muslim Ruler.
There are a lot of difference's between Ali's Caliphate and al Hassan's
First of all, a lot of them doesn't mean all of them.
Secondly, they themselves may have died but they have created a culture were such rebellious ways were copied by others(who for example killed Ali, robbed and stabbed al Hassan etc.) so they were replaced by people who were equally or more anarchistic. It wasn't just about the murder of Uthman, Muawiya simply distrusted them. The murder of Uthman was a confirmation of that and gave him a legal basis for opposing them. He was generally suspicious of people who could not keep order as he saw them as fitnah makers if given the opportunity. He also saw this as a violation of the Prophet's command to keep the Caliphate to the Quraysh, which according to him probably didn't only mean the Caliph himself but the entire power structure as others would cause fitnah. It was after all his father who wanted to depose Abu Bakr and help Ali. They distrusted lower clans of Quraysh to keep order, let alone bedouins and Egyptians etc. It wasn't as much about Ali or al Hassan as it was about these people.
Thirdly, after Abu Musa al Ashari's blunder, Ali was supposed to have stepped down and therefore Muawiya had a legal basis for being declared Caliph himself. Since Muawiya preceded al Hassan in being declared Caliph, al Hassan's case, according to Muawiya was not so strong.
Fourth, even if Ali was the Caliph, he didn't appoint his son. Shia's may believe so and may even believe that the Prophet (ﷺ) did so, but I don't think there is good evidence from the reports of Sunni's that Ali did.
Fifthly, al Hassan didn't have as much support as Ali (ra). The supporters of Ali in Kufa after Ali's death pledged allegiance to him, but is there evidence that the Muhajirun and Ansar in Medinah did as well? I don't know, I have to double check.
Lastly, by this time, seeing how a part of Ali's army behaved, Muawiya completely lost faith in the competence of Ali to control them and had even less in al Hassan that he could. Remember, al Hassan was wounded by them and robbed him of his possessions. Some accounts go even so far that they took the prayer mat beneath him while he was sitting on it.
- Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down when Muawiya was declared Caliph. Why did he (a.s) not accept the result of arbitration?
- Since Muawiya preceded Imam Hassan (a.s) in being declared Caliph, why did Imam Hassan (a.s) accept ruler-ship as according to authentic hadith the person who is selected as Ruler by people first is to kill the person who claims to be caliph during former's rule. How could Imam Hassan (a.s) claim to be Caliph when Muawiya was already declared to be Caliph?
-
According to the hadith of Prophet (s.a.w.w) the group (i.e. army of Imam Ali a.s) which would fight Khawarij would be more nearer to the truth than another group (i.e. army of Muawiya)
I call it verbal diarrhea when a Shi'i goes on a tirade. I usually let it go until there is enough to throw it back at their face so here is a taste of your own filth.
You said that you "agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman)". Did you know that from the same army the Khawarij came into existence? Congratulations on siding with the killers of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).
I quote what Hani mentioned in his book KITAB-ul-SAQIFAH regarding the bayah of Imam Ali (a.s) to Abu Bakr
If you could ponder over my points rather than being like the Jews that troubled Musa (asws) and then 'Isa (asws) by coming up with question after question (to split hair) then maybe you would get my point. As far as you are concerned, Imam Ali (ra) never gave Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) or Uthman (ra) the pledge. Therefore, my point stands! The precedence - to withhold or never give bayah - was set by your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra). For following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra), you should praise Muawiya.
In case you still did not get it, this is not about authentic history. This is to use your own psychobabble make-believe nonsense against you!
- Imam Ali (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel in the same way as Nabi Haroon (a.s) was too helpless, perhaps scared, to rebel against Samiri.
Bad analogy! Haroon's (asws) wife was not attacked nor was he paraded with a rope around his neck. Furthermore, his wife did not go out crying for a piece of land. Nor did he go door-to-door - with his two kids tucked under the arms of his wife - begging people for some help. There is no consistency between the situation of Haroon (asws) and your concocted fairy tale regarding Imam Ali and his family - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon them.
- Imam Ali (a.s) brought an army against Muawiya in accordance with commandments of ALLAH (SWT) i.e. to fight rebels until they submit to the Command of ALLAH (SWT)
...but he saw fit to stay quiet in relation to other rebels who actually killed Uthman (ra)? Now you see how you are making Imam Ali (ra) to be unjust?
Did those newly Hundreds of Thousands Muslims think differently from rest of the Muslims? If monarchy was not an issue then what was the reason of avoiding the bayah of Yazid by Imam Hussayn (a.s) and Abdullah ibn Zubayr in Medina?
Are you confusing hundreds of thousands of people with machines that by deploying auto-sync they, too, would feel the pulse of the ummah? And this is the Shi'i foolproof tactic. Open as many fronts to comment on as possible to get away from the main point.
If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya commit the offense? ???
Where does it say in the narration that Muawiya committed an offense? Heck, the narration does not even say that Muawiya (himself) said that he is busy eating. Both times, it is Ibn Abbas (ra) reporting back to the Prophet (saw) saying that Muawiya was eating. Not a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya or Muawiya saying anything to Ibn Abbas (ra).
If Muawiya was unaware (of being called by Prophet s.a.w.w) then how did Muawiya disobey an order? ???
Where does it say Muawiya disobeyed the Prophet (saw)? And we can always talk about Imam Ali's (ra) "disobedience" while writing the treaty.
-
I call it verbal diarrhea when a Shi'i goes on a tirade. I usually let it go until there is enough to throw it back at their face so here is a taste of your own filth.
You said that you "agree that Imam Ali (a.s) and his army (consisting of people who took part in the murder of 'Uthman)". Did you know that from the same army the Khawarij came into existence? Congratulations on siding with the killers of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra).
If you could ponder over my points rather than being like the Jews that troubled Musa (asws) and then 'Isa (asws) by coming up with question after question (to split hair) then maybe you would get my point. As far as you are concerned, Imam Ali (ra) never gave Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra) or Uthman (ra) the pledge. Therefore, my point stands! The precedence - to withhold or never give bayah - was set by your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra). For following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra), you should praise Muawiya.
In case you still did not get it, this is not about authentic history. This is to use your own psychobabble make-believe nonsense against you!
Bad analogy! Haroon's (asws) wife was not attacked nor was he paraded with a rope around his neck. Furthermore, his wife did not go out crying for a piece of land. Nor did he go door-to-door - with his two kids tucked under the arms of his wife - begging people for some help. There is no consistency between the situation of Haroon (asws) and your concocted fairy tale regarding Imam Ali and his family - may Allah's peace and blessings be upon them.
...but he saw fit to stay quiet in relation to other rebels who actually killed Uthman (ra)? Now you see how you are making Imam Ali (ra) to be unjust?
Are you confusing hundreds of thousands of people with machines that by deploying auto-sync they, too, would feel the pulse of the ummah? And this is the Shi'i foolproof tactic. Open as many fronts to comment on as possible to get away from the main point.
Where does it say in the narration that Muawiya committed an offense? Heck, the narration does not even say that Muawiya (himself) said that he is busy eating. Both times, it is Ibn Abbas (ra) reporting back to the Prophet (saw) saying that Muawiya was eating. Not a single mention of Ibn Abbas (ra) saying anything to Muawiya or Muawiya saying anything to Ibn Abbas (ra).
Where does it say Muawiya disobeyed the Prophet (saw)? And we can always talk about Imam Ali's (ra) "disobedience" while writing the treaty.
Disappointing response. You had no strong arguments just trash-talk. It just shows your mindset.
Avoiding all your trash-talk, I will respond to your absurd arguments.
- Imam Ali's (a.s) army who fought Khawarij are highly praised in authentic hadiths. If your absurd and nonsensical argument is to be believed to be true then it would mean that the group nearer to the truth is Muawiya and his army as from the day one it was Muawiya and his army fighting Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of people who were to become Khawarij.
Now my question to you is: Which group was nearer to the truth?
01. Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of Khawarij; or
02. Army of Muawiya which was from day one fighting Khawarij as they were in the Army of Imam Ali (a.s)
- Show me one authentic Ahlul Sunnah and Shia hadith which states Imam Ali (a.s) withhold the bayah from Abu Bakr for six months. Hani has extensively researched regarding this topic and it would really be surprising if Hani missed any authentic hadith stating that Imam Ali (a.s) withhold his bayah for six months.
- Nabi Haroon (a.s) task was to guide Bani Israel in the absence of Nabi Musa (a.s) but because Nabi Haroon (a.s) feared for his life he did not rebel against Samiri. Am I right?
I gave the example of Nabi Haroon (a.s) when you said that Imam Ali (a.s) was scared to rebel. Imam Ali (a.s) followed the Sunnah of Nabi Haroon (a.s) in this matter.
- If you had read my posts in another thread I have been asking same question but to my disappoint nobody in this forum has provided any answer. I asked: Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not punish those people involved in rebellion against 'Uthman but included those rebels in his (a.s) army and fought with people seeking Qisas for Uthman.
- Ask Twelvershia.net Team about offense and disobedience of Muawiya as to how did they come to such a conclusion after examining the hadith of Muslim.
As for Imam Ali (a.s) disobedience. I say Worst Analogy. Prophet (s.a.w.w) cursed Muawiya for his disobedience whereas Prophet (s.a.w.w) never cursed Imam Ali (a.s) for his (a.s) so-called disobedience.
-
Disappointing response. You had no strong arguments just trash-talk. It just shows your mindset.
I treat trash like trash. You should not know any better because I am certain you have not been treated any better (given the quantity of nonsense you churn out per day).
- Imam Ali's (a.s) army who fought Khawarij are highly praised in authentic hadiths.
Again, this is about refuting you using your own nonsense; has nothing to do with authentic reports. You made a blanket statement in favor of the army of Imam Ali (ra) and included those who took part in the killing of Uthman (ra). From the same army, when later Imam Ali (ra) accepted Muawiya's arbitration, a group of men rebelled against Imam Ali (ra) and came to be known as the Khawarij. If fighting Khawarij is praiseworthy, I wonder what should we call you for praising the same army which produced the Khawarij. I can come up with a few terms to describe you but I will leave that for another time.
If your absurd and nonsensical argument is to be believed to be true then it would mean that the group nearer to the truth is Muawiya and his army as from the day one it was Muawiya and his army fighting Army of Imam Ali (a.s) which consisted of people who were to become Khawarij.
Shut up already! You praised the same army from which the Khawarij came forth.
Now my question to you is: Which group was nearer to the truth?
Can we first talk about your fate? Those who died more than 13 centuries ago cannot but you can answer for yourself (since you are present in our midst). Why would you praise an army from which the Khawarij came into existence? And if fighting the Khawarij is "highly praiseworthy", I am sure treating their supporter (like yourself) like trash is also a noble deed. Indeed I am executing a noble act.
- Show me one authentic Ahlul Sunnah and Shia hadith which states Imam Ali (a.s) withhold the bayah from Abu Bakr for six months. Hani has extensively researched regarding this topic and it would really be surprising if Hani missed any authentic hadith stating that Imam Ali (a.s) withhold his bayah for six months.
What does it matter to you? In your oft-slapped brain, it has been established that Imam Ali (ra) never gave bayah. You also pointed out that Muawiya also never gave bayah to Imam Ali (ra). Hence, Muawiya was following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra). Shouldn't you praise Muawiya for it? And if you find not giving bayah to be an act of rebellion, shouldn't you call your own 1st "infallible" Imam (ra) a rebel?
- Nabi Haroon (a.s) task was to guide Bani Israel in the absence of Nabi Musa (a.s) but because Nabi Haroon (a.s) feared for his life he did not rebel against Samiri. Am I right?
I gave the example of Nabi Haroon (a.s) when you said that Imam Ali (a.s) was scared to rebel. Imam Ali (a.s) followed the Sunnah of Nabi Haroon (a.s) in this matter.
We call that a cop out! For all the reasons I pointed in my earlier post, plus the fact that Imam Ali (ra) was NEVER assigned the task to guide the ummah, the situation of Haroon (asws) is not the same as the fairy tale your lot has made up for Imam Ali (ra) and therefore, it does not serve as your escape route. No emergency exit here; only the trash chute and I'll see to it that I slide you down the same trash chute!
- If you had read my posts in another thread I have been asking same question but to my disappoint nobody in this forum has provided any answer. I asked: Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not punish those people involved in rebellion against 'Uthman but included those rebels in his (a.s) army and fought with people seeking Qisas for Uthman.
Shias have many disappointments. I don't have time for your endless nonsense and sobbing. Maybe you can ask your hiding guide if he ever dares come out!
- Ask Twelvershia.net Team about offense and disobedience of Muawiya as to how did they come to such a conclusion after examining the hadith of Muslim.
They were playing with your conclusion, not putting forth their own! In other words, they were refuting the conclusion of your seniors!
As for Imam Ali (a.s) disobedience. I say Worst Analogy. Prophet (s.a.w.w) cursed Muawiya for his disobedience whereas Prophet (s.a.w.w) never cursed Imam Ali (a.s) for his (a.s) so-called disobedience.
You have not proved disobedience and you can never prove that "May Allah not fill his belly" is cursing someone. On the contrary, it is to wish for someone's sustenance to never come to an end. And history tells us that Muawiya was rich. Or you could say he was loaded! He did not have to go door-to-door begging for a piece of land or crying for his (never ordained) "rights".
-
Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi has narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.
In this narration Prophet (s.a.w.w) is seen cursing Muawiya but I have yet to see how did this curse become source of purification, reward and mercy for Muawiya.
Allow me to address this point in a way that will hurt you the most. This is not my belief but allow me to point out all the rewards and mercy for Muawiya (to lay it into you).
- Muawiya ruled gloriously, plentifully and for a long time. Imam Ali's (ra) rule was tumultuous and short. Imam Hassan's (ra) rule did not even last a year.
- Muawiya brought new lands under Islamic rule. Imam Ali (ra)....not so much!
- Muawiya was not killed; he died a natural, peaceful death. Imam Ali (ra) was killed. Even from among his offspring and later generations, there were those that were slaughtered.
- Muawiya was loaded (rich). Imam Ali (ra) was not rich. According to you (Shias), his wife had to beg for a piece of land.
- Muawiya did not have to give up his daughter by force. Imam Ali (ra), according to you, was forced to give Umm Kulthoom (ra) in marriage to Umar (ra).
- Muawiya maintained his power and never lost control of his own leadership. Imam Ali (ra) and your remaining 11 Imams (ra) could not even maintain control over what was "Divinely Ordained" for them (as per your belief).
-
Even if I assume what you said is true I want to ask one question:
- At present it is accepted by both Shias and Ahlul Sunnah that Muawiya's qiyās was wrong regarding fighting back Muslim Ruler's Army. My question: would Muawiya's killing of any single Muslim (who was in the Army of Imam Ali a.s) cause ALLAH'S (SWT) Wrath and Curse to descend upon him (i.e. Muawiya) as per the Ayat of Surah an-Nisa?
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:93)
Qiyas? What has qiyas got to do with it?
You wanted a peek inside the head of Muawiya, now you want a peek inside the understanding of how Allah will judge according to Sunni's. I am sorry but I will not do such a thing. All I will say is, killing a believer is not a small thing. You must not forget however that Allah judges according to one's intentions.
Amr ibn al-‘As reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning (ijtihad) and he is correct, then he will have two rewards. If a ruler makes a ruling, striving to apply his reasoning and he is mistaken, then he will have one reward.”
Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 6919, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1716
Grade: Muttafaqun Alayhi (authenticity agreed upon) according to Al-Bukhari and Muslim
عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ الْعَاصِ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
6919 صحيح البخاري كتاب الاعتصام بالكتاب والسنة باب أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ
1716 صحيح مسلم كتاب الأقضية باب بيان أجر الحاكم إذا اجتهد فأصاب أو أخطأ
I don't think that is a valid conclusion, but even if, Muawiya was still the ruler of Syria, that is part of the whole problem.
Muawiya may think whatever he likes but he is not allowed to act against al-Quran and Sunnah.
Quran and Sunnah clearly mentions to obey those in authority and never to fight (or fight back) Muslim Ruler. Muawiya would be held accountable for his actions going against al-Quran and Sunnah.
I don't think that the prohibitions regarding fighting back are so clear that there is no ijtihad possible regarding it.
If Imam Ali (a.s) didn't think he was held hostage by his own (a.s) army then Muawiya thinking otherwise carries no weight. Muawiya should had pledged allegiance to legitimate Muslim Ruler.
Again, we are not talking about what Muawiya should have done. And if Muawiya thought Ali was held hostage, it would not be his justification for any of his decisions anyway, it was simply how he read the situation. His justification was Qisas for Uthman. And Muawiya or any one else are free to read a situation as they see it.
- Why did Imam Ali (a.s) not step down when Muawiya was declared Caliph. Why did he (a.s) not accept the result of arbitration?
- Since Muawiya preceded Imam Hassan (a.s) in being declared Caliph, why did Imam Hassan (a.s) accept ruler-ship as according to authentic hadith the person who is selected as Ruler by people first is to kill the person who claims to be caliph during former's rule. How could Imam Hassan (a.s) claim to be Caliph when Muawiya was already declared to be Caliph?
For similar reasons as Muawiya not stepping down as ruler of Syria and pledging allegiance to Ali. They both saw the process as even though technically correct, but based on and directly benefiting from an injustice(in the case of Muawiya this was the murder of Uthman and in the case of Ali this was the deception of Abu Musa al Ashari) and therefore unacceptable.
Al Hassan accepting the rulership obviously was the wisest thing to do. From the beginning he wanted to end this and he basically saw three options. Fighting Muawiya, unite by convincing Muawiya to pledge allegiance to him or unite by pledging allegiance to Muawiya. The first was not really an option for him because he wanted to end this peacefully and he saw no quick way to end this violently. In both remaining cases, it would not make sense to not accept the rulership. It would not make sense to convince Muawiya to give him the Caliphate if he didn't claim the Caliphate in the first place. Likewise, pledging allegiance to Muawiya without the Iraqi's pledging allegiance to al Hassan would have little to no effect as they would just find someone else to pledge allegiance to and rally behind. This is something that al Hassan obviously tried to prevent.
-
"Muawiya ruled gloriously, plentifully and for a long time. Imam Ali's (ra) rule was tumultuous and short. Imam Hassan's (ra) rule did not even last a year.
- Muawiya brought new lands under Islamic rule. Imam Ali (ra)....not so much!
- Muawiya was not killed; he died a natural, peaceful death. Imam Ali (ra) was killed. Even from among his offspring and later generations, there were those that were slaughtered.
- Muawiya was loaded (rich). Imam Ali (ra) was not rich. According to you (Shias), his wife had to beg for a piece of land.
- Muawiya did not have to give up his daughter by force. Imam Ali (ra), according to you, was forced to give Umm Kulthoom (ra) in marriage to Umar (ra).
- Muawiya maintained his power and never lost control of his own leadership. Imam Ali (ra) and your remaining 11 Imams (ra) could not even maintain control over what was "Divinely Ordained" for them (as per your belief)."
Muawiyah this, that and the other, OK. So was Muawiyah better than Usman? Because Usman lost control as well. Why didn't you mention this? Or may be it wasn't Usman's fault. Was Muawiyah better than Abu Bakr and Umar? Would you like to clear this that if Muawiyah was do good then why don't you honour him, he's not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon 😊
-
Muawiyah this, that and the other, OK. So was Muawiyah better than Usman? Because Usman lost control as well.
I should have known that dimwits cannot distinguish between rewards and mercy and actually being better (than someone else). However, since you have turned this into a "who is better" discussion, allow me to kick you and Ijtaba in your nether regions, as was and will be the purpose of my posts, in case there is something there.
It was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who saw Muawiya to be better than him, a better fit for Caliphate, and therefore, he decided to forego his "Divinely Ordained Right" in favor of Muawiya. So maybe not better than Usman (ra) but definitely better than your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra).
His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage; there was no rope around his neck; he was not dragged out like an animal.....certainly received "rewards and mercy" in abundance compared to what you say happened to your "infallibles" (ra).
Would you like to clear this that if Muawiyah was do good then why don't you honour him
I honor him. If honoring Muawiya causes you to lose sleep, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muawiya. May his haters have week-long diarrhea! Wait, his haters do have verbal diarrhea that dates back to 14 centuries ago, lol!
-
Conclusion:
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of going against Quran and Sunnah of Rasul-ULLAH (s.a.w.w)
Going against Quran and Sunnah? His ijtihad also has basis in the Quran. Another case of "hindsight is 20/20" here. Why don't you google what "hindsight is 20/20" mean.
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of rebellion against legitimate Muslim Ruler.
Rebelled? I don't think your imam was in agreement with you:
وكان بدء أمرنا أنا التقينا والقوم من أهل الشام. والظاهر أن ربنا واحد ونبينا واحد، ودعوتنا في الاسلام واحدة. لا نستزيدهم في الإيمان بالله والتصديق برسوله صلى الله عليه وآله ولا يستزيدوننا. الأمر واحد إلا ما اختلفنا فيه من دم عثمان ونحن منه براء
The whole thing began thus that we and the Syrians met in an encounter although we believe in one and the same Allah and the same Prophet, and our message in Islam is the same. We did not want them to add anything in the belief in Allah or in acknowledging His Messenger (Allah bless him and his descendants) nor did they want us to add any such thing. In fact, there was complete unity except that we differed on the question of `Uthman's blood while we were free of responsibility for it.
[Najhul Balagha Letter 58]
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
- Muawiya being a Sahabi would be forgiven for his act of killing Muslims.
Killing muslims? How could he kill muslims if the other party was the one who brought those muslims into his terratory?
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
Just because Muawiya is a Sahabi all his actions are forgiven and thus whenever historians & researchers look into the Seerah of Muawiya they should consider the Fitna caused by Muawiya to be mystery, unknown, unclear, etc.
Nope. Nothing mystery nor unknown nor unclear. Even your imam admitted to that in the narration I posted above.
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
I also doubt that Muawiya knew about the hadiths as Muawiya was more concerned about the food rather than listening to what Prophet (s.a.w.w) had to say to him.
Sahih Muslim, Book 032, Number 6298:
Ibn Abbas reported: I was playing with children that Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) happened to pass by (us). I hid myself behind the door. He (the Holy Prophet) came and he patted upon my shoulders and said: Go and call Mu'awiya. I returned and said: He is busy in taking food. He again asked me to go and call Mu'swiya to him. I went (and came back) and said that he was busy in taking food, whereupon he said: May Allah not fill his belly! Ibn Muthanna, said: I asked Umm Umayya what he meant by the word Hatani. He said: It means" he patted my shoulders".
Wow! That's sound very much unlike you. Such a desperate response. As pointed out by brother Muslim720, the hadith you quoted might be a plus to Muawiyya rather than minus.
But yeah, no surprise at all since you need to find whatever "perceived fault" to defend your belief in imamah. As I said before, your imaan "feeds" on those "perceived faults".
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
But as Katib e Quran Muawiya would had known following Verse:
“And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is Hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.” (Surah an-Nisā’ 4:93)
Did he killed believers INTENTIONALLY? Hmm...
Sorry to say. Just to go by your deduction, If you applied that to Muawiyya, in fairness, the same should go to Ali too. The battle would have not happened should Ali did not bring his army to Syria (astaghfirullah).
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
IN CONCLUSION:
In another thread, you said you wanted to know Sunnis view of the event. However, in here, it is a kind of Tabarra' "fest". Yeah, you can go on with your Tabarra' "fest". Understandbly, you have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on those.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 & 141 & Al-Hashr: 10). In fact, there isn't any need for us to defend whatever happened at that times in the first place. Our fundamental of belief doesn't depend on those events, unlike you.
-
I should have known that dimwits cannot distinguish between rewards and mercy and actually being better (than someone else). However, since you have turned this into a "who is better" discussion, allow me to kick you and Ijtaba in your nether regions, as was and will be the purpose of my posts, in case there is something there.
It was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who saw Muawiya to be better than him, a better fit for Caliphate, and therefore, he decided to forego his "Divinely Ordained Right" in favor of Muawiya. So maybe not better than Usman (ra) but definitely better than your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra).
His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage; there was no rope around his neck; he was not dragged out like an animal.....certainly received "rewards and mercy" in abundance compared to what you say happened to your "infallibles" (ra).
I honor him. If honoring Muawiya causes you to lose sleep, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muawiya. May his haters have week-long diarrhea! Wait, his haters do have verbal diarrhea that dates back to 14 centuries ago, lol!
😊 Before you do anything you need to seek treatment concerning your extremely bitter, wreched and twisted personality. You sound like one very sick person.
According to the Ahle Sunnah Muawiyah's reign is not considered Caliphate but Malookiyath. He is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. So you personally and individually can jump up and down as much as you like but facts are facts and will remain facts.
You really need to sort yourself out by getting your facts right. Imam Hassan knew what he was like and went into peace treaty with him for the sake of the Ummah.
Because Muawiyah didn't care how many more Muslim lives are lost as long as he is getting his way. That's all Muawiyah cared about. Muawiyah stood his ground regardless because the man didn't care.
Rather than answering and addressing you retaliate as though your in a battle or match. You talk about Muawiyah having and being in control then what about Usman 😊
Yes Muawiyah's wife wasn't attacked and if she was then God save the world. Never mind about his wife being attacked his relative (Usman) got killed and he waged war on this kicking the living daylights out of the Muslim Ummah. He didn't care how many lives were lost and how much harm would come to Islam regarding his stance.😊
What causes me loss of sleep is your extremely bitter and twisted personality which is preventing you from thinking straight. By all means honour him by challenging the Ahle Sunah and adding him to Khulafaa e Rashedoon and considering his reign as Caliphate and not Malookiyath. 😊
-
😊 Before you do anything you need to seek treatment concerning your extremely bitter, wreched and twisted personality. You sound like one very sick person.
Wretched is the right word! Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say, I have decided to answer your wretchedness with the most reprehensible of responses.
According to the Ahle Sunnah Muawiyah's reign is not considered Caliphate but Malookiyath. He is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon.
Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right".
You really need to sort yourself out by getting your facts right. Imam Hassan knew what he was like and went into peace treaty with him for the sake of the Ummah.
...and as I press your wretchedness, you start trumpeting your imbecile seniors. According to you, Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart and yet he handed over his "Divinely Ordained Right" to him. Along the same lines, Imam Hassan (ra) must have also known that Muawiya would appoint Yazeed and introduce chaos in the Ummah. So how did Imam Hassan (ra) help the Ummah for making peace with Muawiya? In fact, if we go by your utterly stupid reasoning, I would blame Imam Hassan (ra) for the killing of Imam Hussain (ra). After all, Imam Hassan (ra) handed Muawiya the Caliphate knowing full well that Muawiya would appoint his son as his successor who would then kill his (Imam Hassan's) brother.
In short, Imam Hassan (ra) actually did a disservice to the Ummah and paved the way for the murder of his own brother (if we go by your idiotic excuse).
Because Muawiyah didn't care how many more Muslim lives are lost as long as he is getting his way. That's all Muawiyah cared about. Muawiyah stood his ground regardless because the man didn't care.
Knowing Muawiya did not care about how many Muslim lives are lost, Imam Hassan (ra) still left the fate of the Ummah in his hands. Perhaps you were blaming the wrong person all along. About time you start prosecuting your own 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) in your laughable gatherings.
Never mind about his wife being attacked his relative (Usman) got killed and he waged war on this kicking the living daylights out of the Muslim Ummah.
If we accept your worldview then Uthman's (ra) wife was far more brave than Imam Ali (ra). When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers. Imam Ali (ra), on the other hand, was a mere spectator when his wife was being attacked.
Another one of your spits that just landed on your own despicable face.
What causes me loss of sleep is your extremely bitter and twisted personality which is preventing you from thinking straight.
Alhamdulilah! Let me know how often you lose sleep over my bitterness and I'll offer extra nawaafil.
-
Wretched is the right word! Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say, I have decided to answer your wretchedness with the most reprehensible of responses.
Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right".
...and as I press your wretchedness, you start trumpeting your imbecile seniors. According to you, Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart and yet he handed over his "Divinely Ordained Right" to him. Along the same lines, Imam Hassan (ra) must have also known that Muawiya would appoint Yazeed and introduce chaos in the Ummah. So how did Imam Hassan (ra) help the Ummah for making peace with Muawiya? In fact, if we go by your utterly stupid reasoning, I would blame Imam Hassan (ra) for the killing of Imam Hussain (ra). After all, Imam Hassan (ra) handed Muawiya the Caliphate knowing full well that Muawiya would appoint his son as his successor who would then kill his (Imam Hassan's) brother.
In short, Imam Hassan (ra) actually did a disservice to the Ummah and paved the way for the murder of his own brother (if we go by your idiotic excuse).
Knowing Muawiya did not care about how many Muslim lives are lost, Imam Hassan (ra) still left the fate of the Ummah in his hands. Perhaps you were blaming the wrong person all along. About time you start prosecuting your own 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) in your laughable gatherings.
If we accept your worldview then Uthman's (ra) wife was far more brave than Imam Ali (ra). When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers. Imam Ali (ra), on the other hand, was a mere spectator when his wife was being attacked.
Another one of your spits that just landed on your own despicable face.
Alhamdulilah! Let me know how often you lose sleep over my bitterness and I'll offer extra nawaafil.
"Realizing that you (e-Shias) will never be satisfied with what we do or say"
Absolutely. You've got that right. And let me tell you exactly why. It's either your double standards or going against reality and facts. Even basic common sense goes straight out of the window in your case. Lets comment on your ridiculous points based on retaliation.
"Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"
That's how you see it with your narrow mind. Open up your mind and this is how you will see it. Just as Ali, Hassan became the fifth RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH OF THE MUSLIMS. Now Hassan could have kept his stance as being recognised as the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH going just as Ali did.
But yes Muawiyah had influence and support and he definitely continued with his confrontational stance. Hassan decided to end the bloodshed but Muawiyah wished to continue it regardless. Hassan being the bigger and better man handed over Caliphate to Muawiya on conditions.
Caliphate which was so dear and beautiful to Muawiya that he would continue with his confrontational stance and keep shedding blood. What Hassan did is exactly what Imamah is all about and that is to protect and defend the message and have the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand.
Ali did what was right at the time and when Muawiya's stance was open and recognised then Hassan looked at that and brought it into account and did what was right and what needed to be done.
-
"Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"
OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God. When Iblees refused to Bow to Adam on God's orders and God kicked him out then why did Allah alow and give into the demands of Iblees?
I'll comment further on this. Do ponder over it.
-
"Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"
OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God. When Iblees refused to Bow to Adam on God's orders and God kicked him out then why did Allah alow and give into the demands of Iblees?
I'll comment further on this. Do ponder over it.
Satan knew very well he couldn't win from Allah, still he asked for RESPITE till the Day of Judgment. And did Allah grant him? Why? Why didn't Satan simply repent? He'll be on the losing side on the Day of Judgment. You might say it is Satan's kibr (pride) that prevents him from repenting. But no matter how proud or powerful he might be, he is still merely a creation and Allah is the creator. So what is the point, why fight a lost cause? Ego and arrogance is the key cause.
But what would you (Muslim 720) think here? Allah gave into the demands of Satan that he was granted the ability and power to wisper in our hearts and minds to help lead us astray. Why was Satan given such a lengthy and long life? Why didn’t Allah just do away with Satan there and then? Do ask yourself these questions and ponder over your ridiculous theory over OVERPOWER!
Satan has power to incite man with tempting thoughts, to call him toward evil, and to make evil seem beautiful to him. Who granted Satan that power and why Muslim 720?
-
"When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers"
Ok, so she definitely knew who the killers of Usman were. Why is there no statement and action on her behalf in history of Islam for bringing the killers to justice? Why didn't the people of Jamal and Safeen, who were so eager and hellbent to see the killers brought to justice, chase her? She exactly knew who the killers were but made no attempt what so ever to raise the matter of Qisas. I wonder why.
-
"Alhamdulilah! Let me know how often you lose sleep over my bitterness and I'll offer extra nawaafil"
Absolutely and my pleasure. I lose sleep all the time, so if could offer extra nawaafil all the time and everytime then that would be great.
You would engage in Worship which will give you Sawaab and I will get Sawaab for getting you to engage in something useful and positive. Win win situation 😀
-
That's how you see it with your narrow mind. Open up your mind and this is how you will see it. Just as Ali, Hassan became the fifth RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH OF THE MUSLIMS. Now Hassan could have kept his stance as being recognised as the RIGHTLY GUIDED CALIPH going just as Ali did.
As we can see, rabbit, you are trying hard to pull me down a rabbit hole by putting forth many desperate posts. Rest assured, you will faint once cornered!
We are not playing by our standards but by yours. If Imams (ra) know everything in the future (which is your belief) then Imam Hassan (ra) - for entrusting Muawiya with the affairs of Ummah - shares the blame for everything Muawiya and Yazeed did, including the killing of Imam Hussain (ra).
Hassan being the bigger and better man handed over Caliphate to Muawiya on conditions.
Going by your beliefs, why did the "bigger and better man" hand over the Caliphate to Muawiya when he knew what was in Muawiya's heart and that Muawiya would violate those conditions? To me, such an explanation pins the blood of Imam Hussain (ra) on none other than Imam Hassan (ra) for if the "bigger and better man" stayed in power, Yazeed would have never get to sit on the throne.
Will you dare address that point?
Caliphate which was so dear and beautiful to Muawiya that he would continue with his confrontational stance and keep shedding blood. What Hassan did is exactly what Imamah is all about and that is to protect and defend the message and have the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand.
Good for Muawiya! The world was beautified to him and he enjoyed the best of the world to the fullest. On the other hand, your Imams (ra) could not even enjoy their "Divinely Ordained Right". And for snatching what was "Divinely Ordained" for your Imams (ra), I'd say Muawiya was a "bigger and better man". After all, Muawiya alone offset the power of your 12 "infallible", "Divinely Guided and Ordained" Imams (ra).
Muawiya = 7; Imams = 0!
Ali did what was right at the time and when Muawiya's stance was open and recognised then Hassan looked at that and brought it into account and did what was right and what needed to be done.
Here we go again! Imam Hassan (ra) knew Muawiya's stance and he still entrusted him with the affairs of the Ummah. Therefore, I blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the miseries that proceeded. Wouldn't you?
OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God.
Talk about misplaced analogies! Yes, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and muscled him out of his "Divinely Ordained Right". And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing Muawiya's love for the world and his intention to break all the conditions, gave the Caliphate to Muawiya.
Wouldn't you blame Imam Hassan (ra) for allowing such a person to rule the Muslims? I would! That is, if I accept your pathetic excuses and incoherent beliefs.
Ok, so she definitely knew who the killers of Usman were. Why is there no statement and action on her behalf in history of Islam for bringing the killers to justice?
Only in your feeble mind, the situation plays out in slow motion. A crowd rushes the home of Uthman (ra), with possibly covered faces, and you want to know why his wife did not positively identify them. As though they were walking with their ID cards hanging from a lanyard around their necks.
Absolutely and my pleasure. I lose sleep all the time, so if could offer extra nawaafil all the time and everytime then that would be great.
You would engage in Worship which will give you Sawaab and I will get Sawaab for getting you to engage in something useful and positive. Win win situation
Anytime I cause you to lose sleep is extra sawaab for me!
-
(e-Shias) 😂👍
But yes Muawiyah had influence and support and he definitely continued with his confrontational stance. Hassan decided to end the bloodshed but Muawiyah wished to continue it regardless. Hassan being the bigger and better man handed over Caliphate to Muawiya on conditions.
Caliphate which was so dear and beautiful to Muawiya that he would continue with his confrontational stance and keep shedding blood. What Hassan did is exactly what Imamah is all about and that is to protect and defend the message and have the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims at hand.
Ali did what was right at the time and when Muawiya's stance was open and recognised then Hassan looked at that and brought it into account and did what was right and what needed to be done.
BANG goes the promotion 😂
So.......basically a DIVINELY ordained right the part you get automatic promotion with a HIGHER status than nabuwwah the most important title that Allah swt can give...........Ameer Muawiya ra TOOK it, lol this is PURE stupidity, infact he didn’t take it......it was GIVEN to him, a divinely ordained title was given up to a killer? Yet Hussein ra never did and never thought twice of sacrificing his family and saving Islam?
This is A simple mindset of the average Shiite.......what Allah swt gives imams as promotions the darn Sunni leader takes it off them and rules himself........killing off the divine Imamate with their Sunni caliphate. Boo hoo hoo.
This is how stupid divine imamate theory really is.👍
Nightmares of saqifa won’t go away easily for you it’s a reality you can’t deal with, look at your posts saqifa has killed off divinity Imamate crap cos it’s just heresay and false whispers with no reality or proofs. Alhamdulillah.
-
"Right! And according to authentic history, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and had him surrender his "Divinely Ordained Right"
OVERPOWERED? OK, According to your ridiculous understanding then, Astaghfirullah, Iblees overpowered God. When Iblees refused to Bow to Adam on God's orders and God kicked him out then why did Allah alow and give into the demands of Iblees?
I'll comment further on this. Do ponder over it.
Lol this is the mentality of an e Shiite lol
Don’t comment further you already are on the verge of ridiculousness lol
E Shiite your imams were given super powers and their role was as leaders like Hassan ra but they just gave it up to let killers rule..........your comparing that to shaitaan??? 😂😂😂😂😂
in your understanding iblees “OVERPOWERED” Allah swt??
Are you stupid? How can a creation overpower his creator? Have you any examples in history or any solid evidences?
Saqifa really has messed up your head e Shiite lol
Shaitaan overpowering Allah swt???.......OMG where do you learn such nonsense from???
Ibn saba????
-
Lol at the stupidity!
Can a prophet give up His title or role?
NO
Can a divinely appointed imam much HIGHER than prophets after promotion give up His role or title?
YES
O M G!!!!!
You have to be thick as a plank of wood to believe such nonsense.
How far deep does the rabbit hole go?
-
First imam couldn’t do anything cos of internal problems
Second imam gave up leadership divine leadership to a killer
Third one wanted to give bayah to another but was martyred instead
Yet you will use promotion of Ibrahim as as an example of divine Imamate?
Ibrahim as was in a big fire and Allah swt ordered the fire not to hurt His KHALIL!!!
Yet imams are higher and Allah swt will let them be humiliated their leadership get usurped and they get killed??
What bloody promotion is that???
Allah swt protects prophets (as with prophet Ibrahim as and the fire) but once you pass your test and get promoted then Allah swt doesn’t help you ( like imams being killed and never ruling).
You pass your test Allah swt helps you in your tasks but when you do pass the promotion.........Allah swt forsakes you and lets killers overpower you makes you into cowards who cannot defend their own wives and makes you run away from killers to be hidden.
Divine Imamate in a nutshell
Alhamdulillah
-
Allah creates Adam and then asks the Angels to bow to Adam. They bow apart from Iblees. He refuses and becomes a disbeliever. Allah banishes him but Satan puts his demands forward. Why did Allah do that? Why did Allah grant him power to assist in leading mankind astray?
The Lord said: "Then get out of here; you are rejected, and there shall be a curse upon you till the Day of Recompense."
Iblis said: "My Lord! Grant me respite till the Day when they will be resurrected."
Allah said: "For sure you are granted respite until the day of a known time." WHY? Why didn't Allah just do away with him Muslim 720?
Why did Allah grant him respite despite knowing his intentions and what he is going to do? Why didn't Allah protect the offspring of Adam? Allah created Adam and mankind began, wasn't it Allah's duty to protect mankind?
Iblis said: "My Lord! In the manner You led me to error, I will make things on earth seem attractive to them and lead all of them to error, except those of Your servants whom You have singled out for Yourself."
The above were the intentions of Iblees but still Allah refused to protect mankind, why Muslim 720?
Allah said: "Here is the path that leads straight to Me. Over My true servants you will be able to exercise no power, your power will be confined to the erring ones, those who choose to follow you. Surely Hell is the promised place for all of them."
Why didn't Allah protect everyone especially the weak and vulnerable Muslim 720? Or may be the others who have jumped on your bandwagon can elaborate? I'm just showing you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror 😊
-
Here's another one based on your ideology and thinking Muslim 720.
NOAH was the Prophet of God. How many years did he preach? How many people did he make believe? Would you say that it was Noah's fault and he was to blame for the Ummah to be drowned by the floods because he didn't succeed in making people believe? Or would you say that God was to blame because he refused to help Noah to succeed in making people believe? Just showing you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror again.
-
First imam couldn’t do anything cos of internal problems
Second imam gave up leadership divine leadership to a killer
Third one wanted to give bayah to another but was martyred instead
Yet you will use promotion of Ibrahim as as an example of divine Imamate?
Ibrahim as was in a big fire and Allah swt ordered the fire not to hurt His KHALIL!!!
Yet imams are higher and Allah swt will let them be humiliated their leadership get usurped and they get killed??
What bloody promotion is that???
Allah swt protects prophets (as with prophet Ibrahim as and the fire) but once you pass your test and get promoted then Allah swt doesn’t help you ( like imams being killed and never ruling).
You pass your test Allah swt helps you in your tasks but when you do pass the promotion.........Allah swt forsakes you and lets killers overpower you makes you into cowards who cannot defend their own wives and makes you run away from killers to be hidden.
Divine Imamate in a nutshell
Alhamdulillah
"First imam couldn’t do anything cos of internal problems"
It depends what you mean and think about doing. Use of force or violence and threatening behaviour isn't part of Imamah but has been of certain Companions be in Caliphate or not. It was down to the Ummah what they wanted and how they behaved. Even Allah doesn't do anything if you don't care.
"Second imam gave up leadership divine leadership to a killer"
To put an end to the bloodshed and mayhem caused by him. Otherwise he would have continued with his ruthless confrontational stance. He didn't care how many lives were lost and how many more will be. And what exactly did the Prophet s.a.w say which is in your authentic books about this second Imam?😊
Abu Bakrah reported: I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, upon the pulpit and with him was Al-Hasan. He would turn to the people and turn to Al-Hasan and he said, “Verily, this son of mine is a chief, so Allah will make peace between two large groups of Muslims through him.”
Source: Sunan An-Nasa’i 1410, Sahih Bukhari 2557
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Bukhari
Ibn Kathir said, “This is exactly what has happened.”
Source: Al-Bidayah wa-Nihayah
أَبَا بَكْرَةَ يَقُولُ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ وَالْحَسَنُ مَعَهُ وَهُوَ يُقْبِلُ عَلَى النَّاسِ مَرَّةً وَعَلَيْهِ مَرَّةً وَيَقُولُ إِنَّ ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ
1410 سنن النسائي كِتَاب الْجُمْعَةِ إن ابني هذا سيد ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين من المسلمين عظيمتين
2557 صحيح البخاري كِتَاب الصُّلْحِ بَاب قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِلْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ
قال ابن كثير وَهَكَذَا وَقَعَ
البداية والنهاية كتاب الفتن والملاحم وأشراط الساعة والأمور العظام يوم القيامة
-
"Third one wanted to give bayah to another but was martyred instead"
So who was this other and what is your stance on your sixth Caliph of the Muslims Yazeed ibn Muawiya? Do you also praise and honour him like his father boys?
"Yet you will use promotion of Ibrahim as as an example of divine Imamate?"
Rather than yapping on about it what's your stance? Was Abraham promoted, was he demoted or given a title of a similar nature and grade? 😊 Come on lads, why are you so hesitant and shy to answer?
"Yet imams are higher and Allah swt will let them be humiliated their leadership get usurped and they get killed??"
Mankind is also classified as the best of creation (Ashraf e Makhlookat) but Allah allowed Satan to toy and play with this superior Makhlooq rather than protecting it. Just showing you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror😊
"Allah swt protects prophets (as with prophet Ibrahim as and the fire) but once you pass your test and get promoted then Allah swt doesn’t help you ( like imams being killed and never ruling)"
Certain Messengers and Prophets have also been killed through and by mankind when Allah sent them for their guidance. I will show you proof from the Qur'an. I wonder why Allah didn't protect and save them.
"Divine Imamate in a nutshell"
More like your narrow minded and locked ideology and thinking in a nutshell 😊
-
Lol at the stupidity!
Can a prophet give up His title or role?
NO
Can a divinely appointed imam much HIGHER than prophets after promotion give up His role or title?
YES
O M G!!!!!
You have to be thick as a plank of wood to believe such nonsense.
How far deep does the rabbit hole go?
Can a prophet give up His title or role?
NO
Can a divinely appointed imam much HIGHER than prophets after promotion give up His role or title?
Yes
Correction NO. Don't confuse IMAMAH with your so called CALIPHATE which completely collapsed and washed away and is no where to be seen or heard of.
O M G!!!!!
You have to be thick as a plank of wood to believe such nonsense.
How far deep does the rabbit hole go?
ABSOLUTELY 😊
-
Lol this is the mentality of an e Shiite lol
Don’t comment further you already are on the verge of ridiculousness lol
E Shiite your imams were given super powers and their role was as leaders like Hassan ra but they just gave it up to let killers rule..........your comparing that to shaitaan??? 😂😂😂😂😂
in your understanding iblees “OVERPOWERED” Allah swt??
Are you stupid? How can a creation overpower his creator? Have you any examples in history or any solid evidences?
Saqifa really has messed up your head e Shiite lol
Shaitaan overpowering Allah swt???.......OMG where do you learn such nonsense from???
Ibn saba????
Don't pick a piece out of the post and try and give it your own meaning and understanding like the disbelievers. Saqifa didn't mess up my head but actually messed up the Ummah and your belief which depends on it.
-
"First imam couldn’t do anything cos of internal problems"
It depends what you mean and think about doing. Use of force or violence and threatening behaviour isn't part of Imamah but has been of certain Companions be in Caliphate or not. It was down to the Ummah what they wanted and how they behaved. Even Allah doesn't do anything if you don't care.
"Second imam gave up leadership divine leadership to a killer"
To put an end to the bloodshed and mayhem caused by him. Otherwise he would have continued with his ruthless confrontational stance. He didn't care how many lives were lost and how many more will be. And what exactly did the Prophet s.a.w say which is in your authentic books about this second Imam?😊
Abu Bakrah reported: I saw the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, upon the pulpit and with him was Al-Hasan. He would turn to the people and turn to Al-Hasan and he said, “Verily, this son of mine is a chief, so Allah will make peace between two large groups of Muslims through him.”
Source: Sunan An-Nasa’i 1410, Sahih Bukhari 2557
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Bukhari
Ibn Kathir said, “This is exactly what has happened.”
Source: Al-Bidayah wa-Nihayah
أَبَا بَكْرَةَ يَقُولُ لَقَدْ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَلَى الْمِنْبَرِ وَالْحَسَنُ مَعَهُ وَهُوَ يُقْبِلُ عَلَى النَّاسِ مَرَّةً وَعَلَيْهِ مَرَّةً وَيَقُولُ إِنَّ ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ وَلَعَلَّ اللَّهَ أَنْ يُصْلِحَ بِهِ بَيْنَ فِئَتَيْنِ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ عَظِيمَتَيْنِ
1410 سنن النسائي كِتَاب الْجُمْعَةِ إن ابني هذا سيد ولعل الله أن يصلح به بين فئتين من المسلمين عظيمتين
2557 صحيح البخاري كِتَاب الصُّلْحِ بَاب قَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لِلْحَسَنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا ابْنِي هَذَا سَيِّدٌ
قال ابن كثير وَهَكَذَا وَقَعَ
البداية والنهاية كتاب الفتن والملاحم وأشراط الساعة والأمور العظام يوم القيامة
Meaning the first imam had His own internal problems, He bypassed nabuwwah to be promoted straight to imamah yet His role was full of internal turmoil tha Allah swt left it to the people........yet Allah swt always intervened for His prophets especially the example I gave of Ibrahim as and the fire.
Alhamdulillah
He Hassan ra United two great armies.
He didn’t however believe or think that He was giving it to a cold blooded killer who was killing just for power or like some of your kind think even worse of Him ra, it was simple the Shiites were cowards, the Shiites wouldn’t fight so Hassan fulfilled the prophecy Alhamdulillah.
It has NOTHING to do with divine Imamate in any sense or form because a prophet wouldn’t give up His authority to no man......yet a person higher than a prophet can?!??
I notice you bring out sources as if they agree with you somehow lol ........they don’t they confirm what I just wrote especially nothing to do with some divine Imamate idea.
-
"Third one wanted to give bayah to another but was martyred instead"
So who was this other and what is your stance on your sixth Caliph of the Muslims Yazeed ibn Muawiya? Do you also praise and honour him like his father boys?
"Yet you will use promotion of Ibrahim as as an example of divine Imamate?"
Rather than yapping on about it what's your stance? Was Abraham promoted, was he demoted or given a title of a similar nature and grade? 😊 Come on lads, why are you so hesitant and shy to answer?
"Yet imams are higher and Allah swt will let them be humiliated their leadership get usurped and they get killed??"
Mankind is also classified as the best of creation (Ashraf e Makhlookat) but Allah allowed Satan to toy and play with this superior Makhlooq rather than protecting it. Just showing you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror😊
"Allah swt protects prophets (as with prophet Ibrahim as and the fire) but once you pass your test and get promoted then Allah swt doesn’t help you ( like imams being killed and never ruling)"
Certain Messengers and Prophets have also been killed through and by mankind when Allah sent them for their guidance. I will show you proof from the Qur'an. I wonder why Allah didn't protect and save them.
"Divine Imamate in a nutshell"
More like your narrow minded and locked ideology and thinking in a nutshell 😊
What’s up? Does the truth hurt? So it should it’s a bitter pill you have to swallow in your state of mind.
Yes for most of ahlu sunnah they leave Ameer Muawiya ra alone, His son is a whole new ball game that we don’t even bother about or think about he was just a power hungry ruler Allah swt will deal with him nothing to do with our iman.
We don’t know it’s the first one I’ve heard you tell us if He was promoted please do tell us how being promoted from divine to nobody please do tell us where will we find such prophetic divinity promoted to Imamate divinity.......if you have power of talking to angels who relay from Allah swt what promotion is after that? Even some talked directly to Allah swt yet imams never did.
I think you need to be clear in your answers.
Imams leadership got usurped they got killed hardly ever ruled and you are comparing that to iblees and his arrogance?!??
Yes there was messengers and prophets killed......but imams were PROMOTED of some promotion that’s above messengerhood and prophethood which prophets recieved miracles direct from god so imams will have something higher coz they were PROMOTED.....is that right?!?!
Shiism in a nutshell😉
-
Can a prophet give up His title or role?
NO
Can a divinely appointed imam much HIGHER than prophets after promotion give up His role or title?
Yes
Correction NO. Don't confuse IMAMAH with your so called CALIPHATE which completely collapsed and washed away and is no where to be seen or heard of.
O M G!!!!!
You have to be thick as a plank of wood to believe such nonsense.
How far deep does the rabbit hole go?
ABSOLUTELY 😊
Saqifa is emulated within the Muslim world and it’s still done today in all spheres of life we take action after shura (mutual consultation).
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation among themselves; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised]
42:39
🤔 Now where is the divine Imamate theory?!?!?!?!!?
Propbably washed away somewhere and never seen must be some made up old wives tales😉
I am glad you agree 😂👍
-
Don't pick a piece out of the post and try and give it your own meaning and understanding like the disbelievers. Saqifa didn't mess up my head but actually messed up the Ummah and your belief which depends on it.
It did mr promoter every where you turn every post you make saqifa is on your mind and to make it worse for you shura is in the Quran CLEAR TO SEE.....
.
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual consultation among themselves; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance" [are praised]
Yet divine imamate you have to play gymnastics with words like PROMOTIONS 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I know it gives you sleepless nights and endless headaches as your posts show.
Alhamdulilah
-
Meaning the first imam had His own internal problems, He bypassed nabuwwah to be promoted straight to imamah yet His role was full of internal turmoil tha Allah swt left it to the people........yet Allah swt always intervened for His prophets especially the example I gave of Ibrahim as and the fire.
Alhamdulillah
He Hassan ra United two great armies.
He didn’t however believe or think that He was giving it to a cold blooded killer who was killing just for power or like some of your kind think even worse of Him ra, it was simple the Shiites were cowards, the Shiites wouldn’t fight so Hassan fulfilled the prophecy Alhamdulillah.
It has NOTHING to do with divine Imamate in any sense or form because a prophet wouldn’t give up His authority to no man......yet a person higher than a prophet can?!??
I notice you bring out sources as if they agree with you somehow lol ........they don’t they confirm what I just wrote especially nothing to do with some divine Imamate idea.
"Meaning the first imam had His own internal problems, He bypassed nabuwwah to be promoted straight to imamah yet His role was full of internal turmoil tha Allah swt left it to the people......"
No he didn't have his own internal problems. The Prophet s.a.w was from Bani Hashim so certain Muhajir didn't want Caliphate to go to Bani Hashiim as well. This is what all of a sudden the secrecy of Saqifa was all about. No one at Saqifa mourned the Prophet s.a.w otherwise they wouldn’t have been there.
There should have been a period of mourning and then all concerned should have assembled and participated to select a leader and successor to Muhammad s.a.w
If it was organised and conducted do you think the two Shaykhs would have got their way. To the First Imam the worldly position of Caliphate wasn't so important that blood should be spilled over it.
-
"He Hassan ra United two great armies.
He didn’t however believe or think that He was giving it to a cold blooded killer who was killing just for power or like some of your kind think even worse of Him ra, it was simple the Shiites were cowards, the Shiites wouldn’t fight so Hassan fulfilled the prophecy Alhamdulillah."
No one said he was a cold blooded killer and was out there on a killing spree. He just didn't recognise the legitimate Islamic Caliphate and went to extreme measures just to have and get his way.
There is no harm in demanding that the killers of Usman be brought to justice. In fact I think it was a right and just demand. But using means of violence and threatening behaviour, using your influence and connections and raising arms and turning towards bloodshed just to have your demands met was very wrong especially against the legitimate Islamic Caliphate. This is exactly what was wrong and where we differ with you.
Our Imams had their priorities and their priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims. If you are right
then you must use might wasn't the policy of our Imams. And to use might to such a stage and length that who cares what ever the hell happens.
"Alhamdulillah.
It has NOTHING to do with divine Imamate in any sense or form because a prophet wouldn’t give up His authority to no man......yet a person higher than a prophet can?!??"
This is where you are wrong. No one gave up their divine authority. He was willing to resign from Caliphate and let Muawiya take office but why? Because the Ummah was divided over this. And it was done conditionally. Blame the Ummah like yourself for not having a clear objective and stance. Hassan did it but condionally to unite the Ummah and to save further bloodshed.
You know the reason and circumstances so stop trying to exploit the situation. The position of Caliphate has got nothing to do with Imamah. First go and learn and get to know about what Imamah is all about then you won't need to jump up and down.
-
As we can see, rabbit, you are trying hard to pull me down a rabbit hole by putting forth many desperate posts. Rest assured, you will faint once cornered!
We are not playing by our standards but by yours. If Imams (ra) know everything in the future (which is your belief) then Imam Hassan (ra) - for entrusting Muawiya with the affairs of Ummah - shares the blame for everything Muawiya and Yazeed did, including the killing of Imam Hussain (ra).
Going by your beliefs, why did the "bigger and better man" hand over the Caliphate to Muawiya when he knew what was in Muawiya's heart and that Muawiya would violate those conditions? To me, such an explanation pins the blood of Imam Hussain (ra) on none other than Imam Hassan (ra) for if the "bigger and better man" stayed in power, Yazeed would have never get to sit on the throne.
Will you dare address that point?
Good for Muawiya! The world was beautified to him and he enjoyed the best of the world to the fullest. On the other hand, your Imams (ra) could not even enjoy their "Divinely Ordained Right". And for snatching what was "Divinely Ordained" for your Imams (ra), I'd say Muawiya was a "bigger and better man". After all, Muawiya alone offset the power of your 12 "infallible", "Divinely Guided and Ordained" Imams (ra).
Muawiya = 7; Imams = 0!
Here we go again! Imam Hassan (ra) knew Muawiya's stance and he still entrusted him with the affairs of the Ummah. Therefore, I blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the miseries that proceeded. Wouldn't you?
Talk about misplaced analogies! Yes, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and muscled him out of his "Divinely Ordained Right". And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing Muawiya's love for the world and his intention to break all the conditions, gave the Caliphate to Muawiya.
Wouldn't you blame Imam Hassan (ra) for allowing such a person to rule the Muslims? I would! That is, if I accept your pathetic excuses and incoherent beliefs.
Only in your feeble mind, the situation plays out in slow motion. A crowd rushes the home of Uthman (ra), with possibly covered faces, and you want to know why his wife did not positively identify them. As though they were walking with their ID cards hanging from a lanyard around their necks.
Anytime I cause you to lose sleep is extra sawaab for me!
"A crowd rushes the home of Uthman (ra), with possibly covered faces, and you want to know why his wife did not positively identify them. As though they were walking with their ID cards hanging from a lanyard around their necks."
The people of Jamal and Safeen wanted the killers of Usman to be brought to justice and people like you claim that those killers were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army. If she couldn’t or didn't recognise them then where do your claims go?😊 How did your kind along with people of Jamal and Safeen recognise them? Get your facts right first. Don't pick and choose and then go by what ever suits you.
"We are not playing by our standards but by yours. If Imams (ra) know everything in the future (which is your belief) then Imam Hassan (ra) - for entrusting Muawiya with the affairs of Ummah - shares the blame for everything Muawiya and Yazeed did, including the killing of Imam Hussain (ra)."
Well according to your theory Allah also knew and knows everything but still allowed Iblees to do and have a role in this that and the other and still allows Iblees to carry on with it. So according to you Allah should also be blamed along with Iblees or should be held accountable rather than Iblees because he allowed and condoned it 😊 Please do elaborate on your theory rather than avoiding it or keeping it reserved on the Imams 😊
"Going by your beliefs, why did the "bigger and better man" hand over the Caliphate to Muawiya when he knew what was in Muawiya's heart and that Muawiya would violate those conditions? To me, such an explanation pins the blood of Imam Hussain (ra) on none other than Imam Hassan (ra) for if the "bigger and better man" stayed in power, Yazeed would have never get to sit on the throne.
Will you dare address that point?"
Already addressed it. Check the thread. Latest posts.
-
"Good for Muawiya! The world was beautified to him and he enjoyed the best of the world to the fullest. On the other hand, your Imams (ra) could not even enjoy their "Divinely Ordained Right". And for snatching what was "Divinely Ordained" for your Imams (ra), I'd say Muawiya was a "bigger and better man". After all, Muawiya alone offset the power of your 12 "infallible", "Divinely Guided and Ordained" Imams (ra).
Muawiya = 7; Imams = 0!"
Yes, good for Muawiya but unfortunately not for the Ummah. During the war of Safeen consisting of 72 battles and taking of a year and a half thousands and thousands Muslim lives were lost. So....
Muawiyah = 10/10 And the Ummah= minus many thousands of lives lost. Fortunately Imamah had nothing to do with it.
-
"Meaning the first imam had His own internal problems, He bypassed nabuwwah to be promoted straight to imamah yet His role was full of internal turmoil tha Allah swt left it to the people......"
No he didn't have his own internal problems. The Prophet s.a.w was from Bani Hashim so certain Muhajir didn't want Caliphate to go to Bani Hashiim as well. This is what all of a sudden the secrecy of Saqifa was all about. No one at Saqifa mourned the Prophet s.a.w otherwise they wouldn’t have been there.
There should have been a period of mourning and then all concerned should have assembled and participated to select a leader and successor to Muhammad s.a.w
If it was organised and conducted do you think the two Shaykhs would have got their way. To the First Imam the worldly position of Caliphate wasn't so important that blood should be spilled over it.
Told you saqifa is giving you nightmares 😂😂😂😂👍
Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
Nice story maybe it will work on your kind, we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah.
The shaykhs were there at the funeral and were told of the gathering at saqifa while they were at the funeral, so they went saqifa and came back, we have plenty of info and facts on this website just use the SEARCH.
-
Told you saqifa is giving you nightmares 😂😂😂😂👍
Praise be to Allaah.
One of the most hateful characteristics that a person may have is that of lying. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said concerning it: “Beware of lying, for lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to Hell. A man may continue to tell lies and endeavour to tell lies, until he is recorded with Allaah as a liar.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6134) and Muslim (2607).
Nice story maybe it will work on your kind, we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah.
The shaykhs were there at the funeral and were told of the gathering at saqifa while they were at the funeral, so they went saqifa and came back, we have plenty of info and facts on this website just use the SEARCH.
Dare to address each and every point that I've made 😊
"we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah."
What a wonderful joke. You've certainly got me laughing 😂
-
"He Hassan ra United two great armies.
He didn’t however believe or think that He was giving it to a cold blooded killer who was killing just for power or like some of your kind think even worse of Him ra, it was simple the Shiites were cowards, the Shiites wouldn’t fight so Hassan fulfilled the prophecy Alhamdulillah."
No one said he was a cold blooded killer and was out there on a killing spree. He just didn't recognise the legitimate Islamic Caliphate and went to extreme measures just to have and get his way.
There is no harm in demanding that the killers of Usman be brought to justice. In fact I think it was a right and just demand. But using means of violence and threatening behaviour, using your influence and connections and raising arms and turning towards bloodshed just to have your demands met was very wrong especially against the legitimate Islamic Caliphate. This is exactly what was wrong and where we differ with you.
Our Imams had their priorities and their priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims. If you are right
then you must use might wasn't the policy of our Imams. And to use might to such a stage and length that who cares what ever the hell happens.
"Alhamdulillah.
It has NOTHING to do with divine Imamate in any sense or form because a prophet wouldn’t give up His authority to no man......yet a person higher than a prophet can?!??"
This is where you are wrong. No one gave up their divine authority. He was willing to resign from Caliphate and let Muawiya take office but why? Because the Ummah was divided over this. And it was done conditionally. Blame the Ummah like yourself for not having a clear objective and stance. Hassan did it but condionally to unite the Ummah and to save further bloodshed.
You know the reason and circumstances so stop trying to exploit the situation. The position of Caliphate has got nothing to do with Imamah. First go and learn and get to know about what Imamah is all about then you won't need to jump up and down.
You are all over the place here lol
Ameer Muawiya ra didn’t want power he already had it in shaam, he only wanted revenge for his cousin and the killers were hiding within the Muslims even Ali earth acknowledged that it has nothing to do with leadership but he wanted revenge for Uthman ra.
Ameer Muawiya ra didn’t raise arms,use or threaten violence and cause bloodshed because he wanted to rule the reigns of power he never did any of what you wrote........even though Ali are came with His forces raised arms and used violence first. This is where your kind get emotional and don’t scrutinise facts instead relying on flimsy unauthentic chainless accounts, that’s the difference between Shiite and Sunni, Shiites use ANYTHING even be it false whilst the Sunni uses AUTHENTIC sources. Simple.
You have to use might if your family is in trouble, not standing up for your rights or family doesn’t benefit a Muslim or Muslims even non Muslims will not benefit from such actions hence you are the minority you are because in your minds imams let atrocities happen and they just watched it all, me myself would NEVER follow weak beings like that and that is for the majority Muslims also, you created a weak divinely appointed being who will not fight for his right........that’s not our problem Alhamdulillah......our imam Ali ra and His offspring were not cowards, forget the 12th he is a fake made up being.
State facts......Hassan ran gave up khilafah because the Shiites wouldn’t fight just like with Hussein ra just like throughout Islamic history the Shiites were cowards what did you expect imam Hassan earth to do? The Shiites abandoned Him ra and the rest of the progeny..........answers are closer to home😉👍
Imamah is a divine station which you attain after passing tests if you are prophet but not the last prophet and the progeny of the last prophet don’t have to be prophets to attain such a station......it’s all bout PROMOTIONS!
Yet you can’t provide any evidence of such in Quran or sunnah without adding your verbal gymnastics to words to stretch out meanings.
So really divine Imamate is a made up status that has nothing to do with Islam.
Alhamdulillah
-
Dare to address each and every point that I've made 😊
"we just deal with facts Alhamdulillah."
What a wonderful joke. You've certainly got me laughing 😂
I have it’s not my fault your brain can’t deal with the facts😂😂😂
You are A joker you keep me laughing every time you post nonsense😂😂😂👍👍
-
I have it’s not my fault your brain can’t deal with the facts😂😂😂
You are A joker you keep me laughing every time you post nonsense😂😂😂👍👍
It takes one to know one I guess 😀 You don't want to discuss but want to entertain and be entertained 😁
-
The people of Jamal and Safeen wanted the killers of Usman to be brought to justice and people like you claim that those killers were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army.
Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman).
If she couldn’t or didn't recognise them then where do your claims go?😊 How did your kind along with people of Jamal and Safeen recognise them? Get your facts right first.
So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored? Imagine if in place of Uthman (ra), one of your Imams (ra) was killed in such a way. I bet you would have danced to a different tune then.
Don't pick and choose and then go by what ever suits you.
...like how you focused on this one point (regarding the wife of Uthman and the identity of his killers)?
Well according to your theory Allah also knew and knows everything but still allowed Iblees to do and have a role in this that and the other and still allows Iblees to carry on with it. So according to you Allah should also be blamed along with Iblees or should be held accountable rather than Iblees because he allowed and condoned it 😊 Please do elaborate on your theory rather than avoiding it or keeping it reserved on the Imams 😊
Iblees has no power over us except what our nafs affords him and while Iblees wants our destruction, Allah (swt) is in command at all times. Allah's (swt) Power and Dominance have not shifted hands. In the case of your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), however, he was overpowered by Muawiya. Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his command over the Muslims to a vicious person (according to you). I don't know how you see any similarity in those two scenarios. Easy with the head slapping. You have no brain cells left.
Already addressed it. Check the thread. Latest posts.
You addressed it as much as Imam Hassan (ra) addressed the Caliphate and as much as your 12th Imam is addressing our problems. You just walked away from that point! Chicken!
Yes, good for Muawiya but unfortunately not for the Ummah. During the war of Safeen consisting of 72 battles and taking of a year and a half thousands and thousands Muslim lives were lost. So....
...and yet your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) would make peace with such a vile person! Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake. Oh wait, he was "infallible". Therefore, you must be mistaken! But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.
Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?
Muawiyah = 10/10 And the Ummah= minus many thousands of lives lost. Fortunately Imamah had nothing to do with it.
Imam Hassan (ra), and therefore Imamah, had everything to do with it. It was Imam Hassan (ra) who handed the entire Ummah to Muawiya. Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for Muawiya to destroy the entire Ummah and therefore Islam which is why he placed Muawiya to be the commander-in-chief.
-
Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman).
So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored? Imagine if in place of Uthman (ra), one of your Imams (ra) was killed in such a way. I bet you would have danced to a different tune then.
...like how you focused on this one point (regarding the wife of Uthman and the identity of his killers)?
Iblees has no power over us except what our nafs affords him and while Iblees wants our destruction, Allah (swt) is in command at all times. Allah's (swt) Power and Dominance have not shifted hands. In the case of your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), however, he was overpowered by Muawiya. Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his command over the Muslims to a vicious person (according to you). I don't know how you see any similarity in those two scenarios. Easy with the head slapping. You have no brain cells left.
You addressed it as much as Imam Hassan (ra) addressed the Caliphate and as much as your 12th Imam is addressing our problems. You just walked away from that point! Chicken!
...and yet your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) would make peace with such a vile person! Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake. Oh wait, he was "infallible". Therefore, you must be mistaken! But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.
Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?
Imam Hassan (ra), and therefore Imamah, had everything to do with it. It was Imam Hassan (ra) who handed the entire Ummah to Muawiya. Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for Muawiya to destroy the entire Ummah and therefore Islam which is why he placed Muawiya to be the commander-in-chief.
"Imbecile, I mean Ijtaba, made that positive assertion (that he supports Imam Ali and his army, including those who killed Uthman)"
You're not an imbecile so please don't call yourself that. OK, so who exactly were those who killed Usman? You claimed his wife didn't have a clue because they kept their identies hidden by wearing balaclavas. She didn't have the faintest by being present when the killing took place and even got injured trying to protect him. And you along with those who instigated Jamal and Safeen knew. OK, enough. Would you mind telling me who exactly they were. Lets hear it.
"So because she could not recognize them, the murder of Uthman (ra) should be ignored?"
Who the hell said and meant that. Come on man, have you completely lost it. There is a procedure on how to deal with a murder case. There are ways and methods to go by. And violence and threatening behaviour most certainly isn't one of them. All the evidence needs to be gathered and put together. Lack of evidence and witnesses has a big effect on each and every case.
-
You're not an imbecile so please don't call yourself that. OK, so who exactly were those who killed Usman? You claimed his wife didn't have a clue because they kept their identies hidden by wearing balaclavas. She didn't have the faintest by being present when the killing took place and even got injured trying to protect him.
You require of Uthman's (ra) wife to have named the killers when your own two Imams (ra) - 2nd and 3rd - present outside the house of Uthman (ra) could not identify them. Not to mention, the "Divinely Appointed" second and third Imams (ra) were overpowered, again. SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Imams, scoreless!
And you along with those who instigated Jamal and Safeen knew. OK, enough. Would you mind telling me who exactly they were. Lets hear it.
I never made that assertion. I only wished to lay it into Imbecile who, as a matter of fact, confirmed the inclusion of these rebels in the army of Imam Ali (ra) and also praised them.
All the evidence needs to be gathered and put together. Lack of evidence and witnesses has a big effect on each and every case.
Your point is that Uthman's (ra) wife should have been able to recognize them since she was present inside the house. And because she was unable to do so, the matter can be disregarded or set aside. However, Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also could not identify those who killed Uthman (ra). So the killers of Uthman (ra) not only overpowered your "infallible" Imams (ra) but also evaded their all-encompassing knowledge and succeeded in carrying the murder incognito.
Now, please answer me:
- Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake. Oh wait, he was "infallible". Therefore, you must be mistaken! But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.
Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?
-
You require of Uthman's (ra) wife to have named the killers when your own two Imams (ra) - 2nd and 3rd - present outside the house of Uthman (ra) could not identify them. Not to mention, the "Divinely Appointed" second and third Imams (ra) were overpowered, again. SURPRISE, SURPRISE!
Imams, scoreless!
I never made that assertion. I only wished to lay it into Imbecile who, as a matter of fact, confirmed the inclusion of these rebels in the army of Imam Ali (ra) and also praised them.
Your point is that Uthman's (ra) wife should have been able to recognize them since she was present inside the house. And because she was unable to do so, the matter can be disregarded or set aside. However, Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also could not identify those who killed Uthman (ra). So the killers of Uthman (ra) not only overpowered your "infallible" Imams (ra) but also evaded their all-encompassing knowledge and succeeded in carrying the murder incognito.
Now, please answer me:
- Either you are wrong about Muawiya or your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) made a grave mistake. Oh wait, he was "infallible". Therefore, you must be mistaken! But your ego, blinded by extreme hatred, won't allow you to admit that.
Who is mistaken: Shias or Imam Hassan (ra)?
What you're doing is trying to twist and turn things around just to avoid reality and facts because you are blinded by the enmity you have regarding Shias.
The claim of certain Sunnis are that the killers of Usman were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army. Either correct me on this or accept it. The reason, no actually the excuse for Jamal and Safeen was to bring the killers of Usman to justice. Muawiyah asked Ali, no infact demanded that Ali hand over the killers of Usman to him.
My question is that it clearly seems that they knew who exactly the killers were. Or at least that's what it sounds like. If they knew who the killers were then it is absolutely obvious that Usman's wife must have also known who the killers were because she was a witness to the murder by being present at the crime scene. This makes her a witness as well as a suspect. But I'm not going to touch that.
You claimed that she wasn't aware of the killers for reasons a and b. I'm saying, well ok if she wasn't aware despite being a witness and present at the crime scene, it was difficult for her to recognize and identify them then how the hell did the people of Jamal and Safeen get to know who exactly they were?
All you need to do is stop dancing around and twisting and turning things and look and deal with the case in a reasonable and constructive manner. That is all. You guys are trying your best to create and cause confusion with all the whoo haaa. Either you know who exactly the killers were or you don't.
Now tell me, do you know who the killers were? YES or NO? Answer me.
-
I am 100% right about Muawiya that he used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met when he didn't even know about the facts. He fought 72 battles, and what, just to bring the killers to justice which no one knew or recognised? The history between the group of Muawiyah and the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the legitimate Islamic government was already there. Muawiyah's stance was clear and he surely wasn't going to give in now.
I'm 100% right about Hassan as well. He was a very wise man who knew this and took history into account. His priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims. He absolutely did the right thing by ending the fitna that Muawiya was a reason and cause of. The treaty was conditional and based on circumstances which Muawiya broke all. Muawiyah did eventually show himself.
-
Volume 1, Book 8, Number 438 :
Narrated by 'Ikrima
Ibn 'Abbas said to me and to his son 'Ali, "Go to Abu Sa'id and listen to what he narrates." So we went and found him in a garden looking after it. He picked up his Rida', wore it and sat down and started narrating till the topic of the construction of the mosque reached. He said, "We were carrying one adobe at a time while 'Ammar was carrying two. The Prophet saw him and started removing the dust from his body and said, "May Allah be Merciful to 'Ammar. He will be inviting them (i.e. his murderers, the rebellious group) to Paradise and they will invite him to Hell-fire." 'Ammar said, "I seek refuge with Allah from affliction."
Who were the THEM and THEY? Anybody shed light on this?
Also can someone shed light on the following;
Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: "Musnad"
"Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram'...."
-
The claim of certain Sunnis are that the killers of Usman were part of Ali's administration and central command of the army. Either correct me on this or accept it.
The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.
My question is that it clearly seems that they knew who exactly the killers were. Or at least that's what it sounds like.
As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!
If they knew who the killers were then it is absolutely obvious that Usman's wife must have also known who the killers were because she was a witness to the murder by being present at the crime scene. This makes her a witness as well as a suspect. But I'm not going to touch that.
If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).
It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).
I am 100% right about Muawiya that he used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met when he didn't even know about the facts.
Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!
More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").
I am 100% right about Muawiya
I'm 100% right about Hassan as well
Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.
He was a very wise man who knew this and took history into account. His priority was the welfare of Islam and the benefit of the Muslims.
In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.
I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!
The treaty was conditional and based on circumstances which Muawiya broke all. Muawiyah did eventually show himself.
For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty. Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate. Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.
-
The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.
As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!
If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).
It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).
Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!
More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").
Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.
In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.
I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!
For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty. Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate. Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.
😊 I knew you'd come up with more twist and turns but people of your nature need to be challenged all the way through.
-
😊 I knew you'd come up with more twist and turns but people of your nature need to be challenged all the way through.
You can say that but I am glad that you have established that you believe in paradoxes. I also feel accomplished to have had you admit that you know better than Imam Hassan (ra). Now please blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the wrongdoings of Muawiya and Yazeed, including Karbala.
-
The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.
As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!
If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).
It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).
Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!
More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").
Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.
In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.
I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!
For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty. Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate. Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.
"As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!"
Ok, lets move you forward. Who was the group? And how do you know which group it was?
She is the prime witness as well as a suspect because she was present before, during and after the murder. So she is a very important for any investigation and you have no testimony or statement in history from her regarding the murder.
-
You can say that but I am glad that you have established that you believe in paradoxes. I also feel accomplished to have had you admit that you know better than Imam Hassan (ra). Now please blame Imam Hassan (ra) for all the wrongdoings of Muawiya and Yazeed, including Karbala.
Define paradox and what you mean be I believe in paradoxes. And who are you going to blame about Satan's doing?
-
The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you.
As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!
If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra).
It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra).
Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!
More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles").
Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement.
In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot.
I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!
For having knowledge of the unseen, as per your beliefs, surely Imam Hassan (ra) must have known that Muawiya would violate the treaty. Yet he handed Muawiya the Caliphate. Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed.
Back from work so lets take a look and comment on all of your points as usual.
"The claim was made by Ijtaba or Imbecile. You are welcome, now that I have corrected you"
It is the Ahle Sunah perspective that Ali couldn't or didn't bring the killers of Usman to justice because they were part of his administration and further up in the military ranks. Or what ever other reason they have and put forward. The Ahle Sunah believe that this was the reason and cause of fitna and what caused Jamal and Safeen.
"As a group, yes! As individuals who actually brought down their swords upon Uthman (ra), no!"
Ok, so Usman's wife couldn't recognise them because their faces were covered. Possibly they were wearing balaclavas. But which group they were from and belonged to was known, how and why? Can you explain.
"If everyone present was a witness and a suspect, Sherlock Holmes, then you have two suspects from the "infallibles": Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra)."
Usman's wife was present before, during and after the murder. She got caught up trying to protect and defend her husband and even got injured in the process. That makes her a prime and key witness in the case. You can twist it as much as you like just to avoid the investigation.
Yes this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes and is not a matter of Shariah law 😊 As far as Hassan and Hussein is concerned we will come to them as well. Lets deal with the one you've mentioned and brought in first.
"It is high time you, and others like you, wake up and realize that every assertion you make is an allegation that can also be leveled (on a much worse basis) against your own "infallibles" (ra)."
Ok wise guy. Lets give you something to run from. Usman was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? You claim the killers belonged to a specific group, what makes you think this and can you identify the group and why you think that particular group? Either answer and explain or keep running.
"Thank you for admitting that Imam Hassan (ra), your 2nd "infallible" Imam, was wrong!"
Are you daydreaming. Where and when did I admit Imam Hassan was wrong and what reason did I give and why?
"More than 1400 years later, you know Muawiya more than those present in his time, some allegedly with knowledge of the unseen (as you attribute to your "infallibles")"
Reality and facts along with history tells you what kind of a man he was and his character and role is clear. You are blinded by two things which have overcome your senses and ability to think straight. 1, The enmity you have about the Shia. 2, Member of defend the Sahaba campaign.
"Paradox! I am not surprised. In the minds of Shias, even a paradox is a logical statement."
Please do explain this. Why and what makes you think as such.
"In other words, according to Imam Hassan (ra), Muawiya was more beneficial to the Ummah than his own self. Thank you, once again, for shooting yourself in the foot."
Muawiyah was more beneficial to himself and his agenda. That's why his reign is considered Malookiyath rather than Caliphate. And he is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. Do give Shias a break and have a bang with the Ahle Sunah over why this is so.
"I wonder if Imam Hassan (ra), for giving up the Caliphate, acted out of his own free will or infallibility (a question your entire creed will never be able to answer and account for)!"
Caliphate and Imamah are two totally and completely different things. Start a thread on them when ever you feel like it. I have fully explained Hassan's stance and position regarding the treaty with Muawiya.
"Therefore, you should blame Imam Hassan (ra) for Karbala (among many other crimes) as much as you blame Muawiya and Yazeed."
Allah knew and Iblees even told him that he is going to do what ever he can to lead mankind astray or have a hand in it. Still Allah allowed him to get on with it. Not only this but Allah gave him the means and tools to do it. According to your theory who's to blame here? I've mentioned this before but you're running from it, why?
-
I treat trash like trash. You should not know any better because I am certain you have not been treated any better (given the quantity of nonsense you churn out per day).
Again, this is about refuting you using your own nonsense; has nothing to do with authentic reports. You made a blanket statement in favor of the army of Imam Ali (ra) and included those who took part in the killing of Uthman (ra). From the same army, when later Imam Ali (ra) accepted Muawiya's arbitration, a group of men rebelled against Imam Ali (ra) and came to be known as the Khawarij. If fighting Khawarij is praiseworthy, I wonder what should we call you for praising the same army which produced the Khawarij. I can come up with a few terms to describe you but I will leave that for another time.
Shut up already! You praised the same army from which the Khawarij came forth.
Can we first talk about your fate? Those who died more than 13 centuries ago cannot but you can answer for yourself (since you are present in our midst). Why would you praise an army from which the Khawarij came into existence? And if fighting the Khawarij is "highly praiseworthy", I am sure treating their supporter (like yourself) like trash is also a noble deed. Indeed I am executing a noble act.
What does it matter to you? In your oft-slapped brain, it has been established that Imam Ali (ra) never gave bayah. You also pointed out that Muawiya also never gave bayah to Imam Ali (ra). Hence, Muawiya was following in the footsteps of your 1st "infallible" Imam (ra). Shouldn't you praise Muawiya for it? And if you find not giving bayah to be an act of rebellion, shouldn't you call your own 1st "infallible" Imam (ra) a rebel?
We call that a cop out! For all the reasons I pointed in my earlier post, plus the fact that Imam Ali (ra) was NEVER assigned the task to guide the ummah, the situation of Haroon (asws) is not the same as the fairy tale your lot has made up for Imam Ali (ra) and therefore, it does not serve as your escape route. No emergency exit here; only the trash chute and I'll see to it that I slide you down the same trash chute!
Shias have many disappointments. I don't have time for your endless nonsense and sobbing. Maybe you can ask your hiding guide if he ever dares come out!
They were playing with your conclusion, not putting forth their own! In other words, they were refuting the conclusion of your seniors!
You have not proved disobedience and you can never prove that "May Allah not fill his belly" is cursing someone. On the contrary, it is to wish for someone's sustenance to never come to an end. And history tells us that Muawiya was rich. Or you could say he was loaded! He did not have to go door-to-door begging for a piece of land or crying for his (never ordained) "rights".
Personal insults, nonsensical and idiotic comments without addressing the arguments presented in a civilized manner. I won't steep down to your level.
'Abdullah bin 'Amr bin Al-'as (May Allah be pleased with him) reported:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, "Four are the qualities which, when found in a person, make him a sheer hypocrite, and one who possesses one of them, possesses one characteristic of hypocrisy until he abandons it. These are: When he is entrusted with something, he betrays trust; when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he acts treacherously; and when he argues, he behaves in a very imprudent, insulting manner."
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].
Sunnah.com reference: Book 2, Hadith 10
Arabic/English book reference: Book 2, Hadith 690
Book 032, Number 6263:
Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying:
When two persons indulge in hurling (abuses) upon one another, it would be the first one who would be the sinner so long as the oppressed does not transgress the limits.
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “The believer does not taunt others, he does not curse others, he does not use profanity, and he does not abuse others.”
Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 1977
Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani
عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ لَيْسَ الْمُؤْمِنُ بِالطَّعَّانِ وَلَا اللَّعَّانِ وَلَا الْفَاحِشِ وَلَا الْبَذِيءِ
1977 سنن الترمذي كتاب البر والصلة باب ما جاء في اللعنة
1977 المحدث الألباني خلاصة حكم المحدث صحيح في صحيح الترمذي
-
It is the Ahle Sunah perspective that Ali couldn't or didn't bring the killers of Usman to justice because they were part of his administration and further up in the military ranks.
Says you?
Ok, so Usman's wife couldn't recognise them because their faces were covered. Possibly they were wearing balaclavas. But which group they were from and belonged to was known, how and why? Can you explain.
Why are you asking me? lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point!
Usman's wife was present before, during and after the murder. She got caught up trying to protect and defend her husband and even got injured in the process. That makes her a prime and key witness in the case. You can twist it as much as you like just to avoid the investigation.
Your second and third Imams (ra) were also present. Do you wish to drag them to court?
Yes this is a matter for Sherlock Holmes and is not a matter of Shariah law 😊 As far as Hassan and Hussein is concerned we will come to them as well. Lets deal with the one you've mentioned and brought in first.
It is overdue so get to them now before you keep working down the rabbit hole.
Ok wise guy. Lets give you something to run from. Usman was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? You claim the killers belonged to a specific group, what makes you think this and can you identify the group and why you think that particular group? Either answer and explain or keep running.
Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? Either answer and explain or keep running.
That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol! Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are. However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy.
Are you daydreaming. Where and when did I admit Imam Hassan was wrong and what reason did I give and why?
If you assert, and you did, that you know Muawiya (better than your second Imam), you are therefore elevating your own intelligence above your 2nd "infallible" Imam's (ra)!
Reality and facts along with history tells you what kind of a man he was and his character and role is clear.
And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), possessing knowledge of the unseen, did not know this? You do but not him? Therefore, Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong (for making peace with Muawiya), if you say you are right.
Please do explain this. Why and what makes you think as such.
It is not what I think, it is what you believe. You cannot claim to know Imam Hassan (ra) and then paint an image of Muawiya any differently than known to Imam Hassan (ra). If you do that, you are insinuating your Imam (ra) was an accomplice in all the crimes (actual and imaginary) committed by Muawiya, Yazeed, etc, all the while maintaining that the Imam (ra) is infallible and sinless.
Muawiyah was more beneficial to himself and his agenda. That's why his reign is considered Malookiyath rather than Caliphate. And he is not part of Khulafaa e Rashedoon. Do give Shias a break and have a bang with the Ahle Sunah over why this is so.
I have no issues to take up with anyone. It is you to explain how a mere mortal and vile individual, as per you, was able to overpower your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), lol!
Caliphate and Imamah are two totally and completely different things. Start a thread on them when ever you feel like it.
Oh, right! If they were different, why was Imam Ali (ra) going door-to-door begging for his "right", according to you?
I have fully explained Hassan's stance and position regarding the treaty with Muawiya.
I read your nonsense! Imam Hassan (ra) willingly stepped aside and handed the entire Ummah to a vicious person. And you want me to believe that he was "Divinely Selected" to guide the Ummah? How can such a man be my guide? He sold the Ummah to Muawiya. OR, you are completely mistaken. It is the latter!
-
Personal insults, nonsensical and idiotic comments without addressing the arguments presented in a civilized manner. I won't steep down to your level.
Coming from someone who reviles and curses the Sahaba (ra)? Laughable! Stoop to my level? You wish you could elevate yourself halfway up to my level!
-
Says you?
Why are you asking me? lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point!
Your second and third Imams (ra) were also present. Do you wish to drag them to court?
It is overdue so get to them now before you keep working down the rabbit hole.
Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? Either answer and explain or keep running.
That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol! Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are. However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy.
If you assert, and you did, that you know Muawiya (better than your second Imam), you are therefore elevating your own intelligence above your 2nd "infallible" Imam's (ra)!
And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), possessing knowledge of the unseen, did not know this? You do but not him? Therefore, Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong (for making peace with Muawiya), if you say you are right.
It is not what I think, it is what you believe. You cannot claim to know Imam Hassan (ra) and then paint an image of Muawiya any differently than known to Imam Hassan (ra). If you do that, you are insinuating your Imam (ra) was an accomplice in all the crimes (actual and imaginary) committed by Muawiya, Yazeed, etc, all the while maintaining that the Imam (ra) is infallible and sinless.
I have no issues to take up with anyone. It is you to explain how a mere mortal and vile individual, as per you, was able to overpower your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), lol!
Oh, right! If they were different, why was Imam Ali (ra) going door-to-door begging for his "right", according to you?
I read your nonsense! Imam Hassan (ra) willingly stepped aside and handed the entire Ummah to a vicious person. And you want me to believe that he was "Divinely Selected" to guide the Ummah? How can such a man be my guide? He sold the Ummah to Muawiya. OR, you are completely mistaken. It is the latter!
"Why are you asking me? lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point!"
I brought up Usman's wife? Can you back this up?
"Your second and third Imams (ra) were also present. Do you wish to drag them to court?"
Lets deal with who was present and witnessed the killing. One step at a time. Don't start running ahead with fright. Relax. Answer and address then by all means ask and question. Don't be a coward.
"It is overdue so get to them now before you keep working down the rabbit hole."
Who was the group from whom the killers were? Are you all of a sudden stuck?
"Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? Either answer and explain or keep running."
Counter arguments can't protect you. If you can't answer then say so. We're dealing with the death of Usman. Don't derail the thread. Start another thread and I'll be more than happy to participate. I'm not a coward like you coming up and hiding behind counter arguments.
"That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol! Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are. However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy."
You call me an idiot and you're the one who's behaving like one. You're a spineless coward hiding behind counter arguments.
"And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), possessing knowledge of the unseen, did not know this? You do but not him? Therefore, Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong (for making peace with Muawiya), if you say you are right."
Any comment on the point I made about Allah and Iblees based on your theory? 😊
"I have no issues to take up with anyone. It is you to explain how a mere mortal and vile individual, as per you, was able to overpower your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), lol!"
Overpower, I've already answered and explained this. Just as Iblees overpowered Allah (astaghfirullah) according to your theory😊
"If you assert, and you did, that you know Muawiya (better than your second Imam), you are therefore elevating your own intelligence above your 2nd "infallible" Imam's (ra)!"
Muawiyah 's actions tell exactly who he was. He used the killing of Usman to rebel against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. He used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met. And you can run from this as much as you want but you can't hide from it.
And a bit more for you, what's the definition of a terrorist or a terrorist group? He or those who use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have their demands met. Now find a corner and start to live silently.
"That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol! Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are. However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy."
Name the group from which the killers were. Or zip it.
"Oh, right! If they were different, why was Imam Ali (ra) going door-to-door begging for his "right", according to you?"
Irrelevant to the thread. Start a different thread and ask. I'm not a coward like you. I will answer and address absolutely anything and everything you throw at me. Respect the rules of discussion. Stop bringing in material, making comments and asking questions which are irrelevant to the thread.
-
Since Muslim 720 we're talking about Muawiya and his reign, any comment from you on the following;
Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: "Musnad" ""Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram'...."
-
I should have known that dimwits cannot distinguish between rewards and mercy and actually being better (than someone else). However, since you have turned this into a "who is better" discussion, allow me to kick you and Ijtaba in your nether regions, as was and will be the purpose of my posts, in case there is something there.
It was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who saw Muawiya to be better than him, a better fit for Caliphate, and therefore, he decided to forego his "Divinely Ordained Right" in favor of Muawiya. So maybe not better than Usman (ra) but definitely better than your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra).
His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage; there was no rope around his neck; he was not dragged out like an animal.....certainly received "rewards and mercy" in abundance compared to what you say happened to your "infallibles" (ra).
I honor him. If honoring Muawiya causes you to lose sleep, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muawiya. May his haters have week-long diarrhea! Wait, his haters do have verbal diarrhea that dates back to 14 centuries ago, lol!
His wife was not attacked; his wife did not suffer a miscarriage; his wife did not have to beg for a piece of land while forgetting that she just had a miscarriage"
Who's wife was not? Are you talking about Muawiya or Usman?
-
Says you?
Why are you asking me? lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point!
Your second and third Imams (ra) were also present. Do you wish to drag them to court?
It is overdue so get to them now before you keep working down the rabbit hole.
Imam Hussain (ra) was killed and that is for sure. Was it Murder? Or was it manslaughter? What makes you think it was murder and why? Either answer and explain or keep running.
That is how easy it is to refute you, you spineless idiot, lol! Replace names in your psychobabble diarrhea and let you see how idiotic your comments are. However, it requires an ounce of shame and some brain, both of which you lack, to detect the idiocy.
If you assert, and you did, that you know Muawiya (better than your second Imam), you are therefore elevating your own intelligence above your 2nd "infallible" Imam's (ra)!
And your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), possessing knowledge of the unseen, did not know this? You do but not him? Therefore, Imam Hassan (ra) was wrong (for making peace with Muawiya), if you say you are right.
It is not what I think, it is what you believe. You cannot claim to know Imam Hassan (ra) and then paint an image of Muawiya any differently than known to Imam Hassan (ra). If you do that, you are insinuating your Imam (ra) was an accomplice in all the crimes (actual and imaginary) committed by Muawiya, Yazeed, etc, all the while maintaining that the Imam (ra) is infallible and sinless.
I have no issues to take up with anyone. It is you to explain how a mere mortal and vile individual, as per you, was able to overpower your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), lol!
Oh, right! If they were different, why was Imam Ali (ra) going door-to-door begging for his "right", according to you?
I read your nonsense! Imam Hassan (ra) willingly stepped aside and handed the entire Ummah to a vicious person. And you want me to believe that he was "Divinely Selected" to guide the Ummah? How can such a man be my guide? He sold the Ummah to Muawiya. OR, you are completely mistaken. It is the latter!
"Why are you asking me? lol, Why are you asking me? lol, the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point!and I proved to you how she was more brave than your version of Imam Ali (ra). Don't run away from that point"
Note this bit of yours "the sad part is that you brought up Uthman's (ra) wife"
DID I? ARE YOU SURE? Refer to post #75 of yours. And below is a quote from it.
"If we accept your worldview then Uthman's (ra) wife was far more brave than Imam Ali (ra). When Uthman (ra) was being attacked, his wife brought her hands between Uthman (ra) and the swords and in the process, she lost some fingers. Imam Ali (ra), on the other hand, was a mere spectator when his wife was being attacked."
So who exactly brought up Usman's wife? Honestly your lies as well as twist and turns make me sick.
-
I brought up Usman's wife? Can you back this up?
For certain I can back up my claim! If I were to adopt your beliefs, I cannot help but concede that Uthman's wife (may Allah be pleased with her and her husband) was more brave than Imam Ali (ra). I will not entertain your red herrings. I will hit where it hurts ;)
Lets deal with who was present and witnessed the killing. One step at a time. Don't start running ahead with fright. Relax. Answer and address then by all means ask and question. Don't be a coward.
When you believe your own "infallible" Imam (ra) did not move a muscle in response to the onslaught his wife (ra) faced, calling someone "coward" makes you an object of mockery. However, you gave precedence to those who were "present" before those who "witnessed" the killing. Therefore, we have to put Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in the witness box as well.
Who was the group from whom the killers were? Are you all of a sudden stuck?
The rebels!
Counter arguments can't protect you. If you can't answer then say so.
You could have said it was an idiotic request but you won't because I showed you how stupid you sound. And not just on certain days but always!
You call me an idiot and you're the one who's behaving like one. You're a spineless coward hiding behind counter arguments.
From your level of frustration, I am convinced that you now see how stupid you sound. Remember, I was only putting your own request in front of you by replacing one name with another.
Any comment on the point I made about Allah and Iblees based on your theory? 😊
I have no qualms with how Allah (swt) dealt with Iblees, nor is it the topic of discussion. You, on the other hand, ascribe infallibility to your Imams (ra) but refuse to abide by their decisions, such as entrusting Muawiya with the affairs of the Ummah.
If Muawiya was a ruthless killer who was blinded by his love for dunya, why would an "infallible" Imam (ra) make him in charge of the Ummah? Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for the destruction of the Ummah and therefore Islam?
Overpower, I've already answered and explained this. Just as Iblees overpowered Allah (astaghfirullah) according to your theory😊
Certainly, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and took his "Divinely Ordained Right" from him. And he ruled with swag and enjoyed life. Didn't get killed, didn't witness the slaughter of his family members. Lived it up! Your "infallibles" (ra) could not! Cry me a river!
Muawiyah 's actions tell exactly who he was. He used the killing of Usman to rebel against the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. He used means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have his demands met. And you can run from this as much as you want but you can't hide from it.
For the tenth time, why would your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) trust such a man with the lives and affairs of the Ummah? And you can run from this as much as you want but you can't hide from it. It burns you every day to think that such a man overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and all you can do is cry about it.
And a bit more for you, what's the definition of a terrorist or a terrorist group?
An intellectual terrorist would be your seniors and scholars who hold your brains hostage by preaching some of the most stupid theories. Another red herring, lol!
Irrelevant to the thread. Start a different thread and ask. I'm not a coward like you. I will answer and address absolutely anything and everything you throw at me. Respect the rules of discussion. Stop bringing in material, making comments and asking questions which are irrelevant to the thread.
You can say what you want but your first "infallible" Imam (ra) went door-to-door begging for support to free the Caliphate for himself from the grip of Abu Bakr (ra). Why would I need to start a new thread for it when Shias believe this? lol!
Since Muslim 720 we're talking about Muawiya and his reign, any comment from you on the following;
Sunni scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal writes in his famous collection of Hadtih: "Musnad" ""Abdullah bin Buraida said: 'I entered on Muawiya with my father, then he (Mu'awiya) made us sit on a mattress then he brought food to us and we ate, then he brought a drink to us, Muawiya drank it and then he offered that to my father, thus (my father) said: 'I never drank it since the messenger of Allah made it [that drink] Haram'...."
Now watch how your own request will be come back to hurt you.
I am willing to assume and concede that this drink was alcohol (though it was not)!
Why would your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) hand the Ummah over to an alcohol-imbibing man? Therefore, playing by your standards, we should all condemn Imam Hassan (ra) for all the Muslims drinking alcohol, until Judgment Day, because he (Imam Hassan) made a drunkard a leader and a role model for us (instead of ruling uprightly himself). After all, it was Imam Hassan's (ra) only task to rule and guide the Muslims but he outsourced the task to a drunkard.
Hence, all the misguidance in the Ummah can be blamed on Imam Hassan (ra). SALAVAAT!!!
Who's wife was not? Are you talking about Muawiya or Usman?
Wow, dementia. Did they rain bricks on your head this Muharram, lol?
-
Lol imam Hassan ra gave up divine khilafat to a ........DRUNKARD?!?!?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This just gets better😊
-
Lol imam Hassan ra gave up divine khilafat to a ........DRUNKARD?!?!?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This just gets better😊
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I wonder at what point would they stop and realize that everything they say is a spit that lands right back on their own faces.
-
Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,
I wonder at what point would they stop and realize that everything they say is a spit that lands right back on their own faces.
W alaikum asalam, they have dug a hole so deep that they can’t even get out of it lol.
The more questions asked the more stupid the whole concept of divine Imamate and the history according to them is, I mean you won’t see ANY of the rashidoon Khalifa give up leadership to a drunkard or killer or a money hungry despotic leader.........Yet the divine imam did do exactly that!! He couldn’t muster enough support even Allah swt left him high and dry and let muawiya ra rule.
God must not like shiites for He doesn’t back up their imams or their statuses clear from His book that are higher than prophecy.
A status HIGHER than a prophet and yet the imam gave it to a killer a drunkard astaghfirullah.
A lie never sticks, especially one with a divine nature 😊
Saqifa has got him and he knows it😉
-
A status HIGHER than a prophet and yet the imam gave it to a killer a drunkard astaghfirullah.
A lie never sticks, especially one with a divine nature 😊
Saqifa has got him and he knows it😉
Nothing adds up! Imam Ali (ra) fought Muawiya, Imam Hassan (ra) made peace with him and Imam Hussain (ra) went to dethrone Yazeed. Between father and two sons, you see three contradictory positions that cannot be reconciled unless you adopt the true Sunnah and realize that hindsight is 20/20 (as it has already been mentioned).
Even if Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) and it was his excuse to wage war against Imam Ali (ra), why would Imam Hassan (ra) entrust such a man with the lives and affairs of Muslims?
Even if Muawiya was drinking a forbidden drink - let us pretend alcohol, hell, even blood - why would an "infallible" Imam (ra) step down from his post for such a person to come to power?
It is about time Shias start blaming Imam Hassan (ra) for all of Yazeed's crimes like they pin all the zina (committed around on the world) on Umar (ra) for maintaining the Prophet's (saw) declaration that mutah is haraam.
-
Nothing adds up! Imam Ali (ra) fought Muawiya, Imam Hassan (ra) made peace with him and Imam Hussain (ra) went to dethrone Yazeed. Between father and two sons, you see three contradictory positions that cannot be reconciled unless you adopt the true Sunnah and realize that hindsight is 20/20 (as it has already been mentioned).
Even if Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) and it was his excuse to wage war against Imam Ali (ra), why would Imam Hassan (ra) entrust such a man with the lives and affairs of Muslims?
Even if Muawiya was drinking a forbidden drink - let us pretend alcohol, hell, even blood - why would an "infallible" Imam (ra) step down from his post for such a person to come to power?
It is about time Shias start blaming Imam Hassan (ra) for all of Yazeed's crimes like they pin all the zina (committed around on the world) on Umar (ra) for maintaining the Prophet's (saw) declaration that mutah is haraam.
The reason why nothing adds up for you is because of your lack of age, experience (in discussions) and also lack of knowledge and information.
We are all born and raised with a mindset put it is down to us to develop an open and free mind. You are not willing. You think and behave based on the enmity you have. You respond based on retaliation and scoring. Logic and reason doesn't mean anything to you. And you aren't willing to get to know and understand.
Imam Ali didn't fight Muawiya, he refused allegiance to Ali and wasn't willing to accept him as Caliph. He used the killing of Usman as an excuse to refuse allegiance. You need an excuse because no one comes clean or is that honest about themselves.
What was the reason behind Safeen. Muawiyah accused Ali of having a hand in the killing. Ali claimed he was absolutely innocent of the matter. One was the rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims and the Ulul Amre of the time. The other used his influence and connections which he had built by being a govner during the reign of the previous Caliphs.
Ali did what was right and necessary at the time. Hassan analysed the situation through history and learned that Muawiya will not give up or change his ways. He did what was right and necessary at the time based on circumstances.
Hussain refused allegiance to Yazeed because of him Tampering with Islam and the corruption he was bringing about within. He did what was right and necessary at the time. Hussain didn't go to dethrone Yazeed but was told about the developing situation and was invited by the Kufans.history is there. Read and learn to get tout know.
What is the true Sunnah? Tell me, I really want to know.Hindsight 20/20? Excuse me, we don't use such double standards.
"why would Imam Hassan (ra) entrust such a man with the lives and affairs of Muslims?"
Did he have a choice? If yes, then what choice was that, continue to fight Muawiya or end the bloodshed? It was down to the Ummah. Don't blame him for the division that the Ummah caused and brought upon themselves. It's been 1400 years and still the Ummah is divided over those historical matters and can't gather on one page. And you expect them to.....
"It is about time Shias start blaming Imam Hassan (ra) for all of Yazeed's crimes like they pin all the zina (committed around on the world) on Umar (ra) for maintaining the Prophet's (saw) declaration that mutah is haraam."
We don't play the blame game or discuss based on division and enmity. We look at realty and facts. Logic and reason is what we go by.
-
Lol imam Hassan ra gave up divine khilafat to a ........DRUNKARD?!?!?
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
This just gets better😊
No he didn't. The Ummah decided what they wanted and who they preferred.😊
"W alaikum asalam, they have dug a hole so deep that they can’t even get out of it lol."
The Muslim Ummah dug a hole for themselves and are paying the price for it today.😊 You don't accept Imamah, that is fine. Where is your Caliphate? 😊 You need to give it a rest.
"God must not like shiites for He doesn’t back up their imams or their statuses clear from His book that are higher than prophecy."
You seem to be obsessed with worldly power and status. That is success and glory according to you.
"Saqifa has got him and he knows it😉"
Saqifa got the Ummah and within fifty years of history Muslims fought Muslims and shed their blood. That’s what Saqifa brought.
"Allah swt left him high and dry and let muawiya ra rule."
Based on your theory and thought Allah also left Bani Adam high and dry and left the fate of mankind in the hands of Satan. 😊
-
For certain I can back up my claim! If I were to adopt your beliefs, I cannot help but concede that Uthman's wife (may Allah be pleased with her and her husband) was more brave than Imam Ali (ra). I will not entertain your red herrings. I will hit where it hurts ;)
When you believe your own "infallible" Imam (ra) did not move a muscle in response to the onslaught his wife (ra) faced, calling someone "coward" makes you an object of mockery. However, you gave precedence to those who were "present" before those who "witnessed" the killing. Therefore, we have to put Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in the witness box as well.
The rebels!
You could have said it was an idiotic request but you won't because I showed you how stupid you sound. And not just on certain days but always!
From your level of frustration, I am convinced that you now see how stupid you sound. Remember, I was only putting your own request in front of you by replacing one name with another.
I have no qualms with how Allah (swt) dealt with Iblees, nor is it the topic of discussion. You, on the other hand, ascribe infallibility to your Imams (ra) but refuse to abide by their decisions, such as entrusting Muawiya with the affairs of the Ummah.
If Muawiya was a ruthless killer who was blinded by his love for dunya, why would an "infallible" Imam (ra) make him in charge of the Ummah? Maybe Imam Hassan (ra) secretly wished for the destruction of the Ummah and therefore Islam?
Certainly, Muawiya overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and took his "Divinely Ordained Right" from him. And he ruled with swag and enjoyed life. Didn't get killed, didn't witness the slaughter of his family members. Lived it up! Your "infallibles" (ra) could not! Cry me a river!
For the tenth time, why would your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) trust such a man with the lives and affairs of the Ummah? And you can run from this as much as you want but you can't hide from it. It burns you every day to think that such a man overpowered your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) and all you can do is cry about it.
An intellectual terrorist would be your seniors and scholars who hold your brains hostage by preaching some of the most stupid theories. Another red herring, lol!
You can say what you want but your first "infallible" Imam (ra) went door-to-door begging for support to free the Caliphate for himself from the grip of Abu Bakr (ra). Why would I need to start a new thread for it when Shias believe this? lol!
Now watch how your own request will be come back to hurt you.
I am willing to assume and concede that this drink was alcohol (though it was not)!
Why would your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) hand the Ummah over to an alcohol-imbibing man? Therefore, playing by your standards, we should all condemn Imam Hassan (ra) for all the Muslims drinking alcohol, until Judgment Day, because he (Imam Hassan) made a drunkard a leader and a role model for us (instead of ruling uprightly himself). After all, it was Imam Hassan's (ra) only task to rule and guide the Muslims but he outsourced the task to a drunkard.
Hence, all the misguidance in the Ummah can be blamed on Imam Hassan (ra). SALAVAAT!!!
Wow, dementia. Did they rain bricks on your head this Muharram, lol?
Who brought up Usman's wife, me or you Then why did you accuse me? At least accept your fault of throwing accusations around based on lies. Yes she was so brave that she refused to bring the killers to justice by remaining quiet and silent. No statement or effort from her what so ever.
"When you believe your own "infallible" Imam (ra) did not move a muscle in response to the onslaught his wife (ra)"
When and where did I say this was part of my belief? 😊 You can't back up anything, can you? You talk wind out of enmity. Save yourself from this disease.
"Therefore, we have to put Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) in the witness box as well."
By all means but deal with one thing at a time. First Usman's wife who you brought up first.😊
"The rebels!"
😀 Come on. You need to do better than that. You need to either name people or the exact group you think was responsible. Otherwise you're a joke. So who sounds stupid now.
" I was only putting your own request in front of you by replacing one name with another."
What a childish response. You're only coming up with counter arguments based on tit for tat. Because you have nothing to discuss. You brought up Usman's wife and her situation, I questioned you on that and you saved yourself by counter argument.
The example of Allah and Iblees, I only showed you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror. But I don't think anything is going to change or move you.
"If Muawiya was a ruthless killer who was blinded by his love for dunya, why would an "infallible" Imam (ra) make him in charge of the Ummah?"
It's not the decision of the Imam or down to them. It's the decision of the Ummah of how they behave and want they want. Muawiyah, Yazeed and many more examples I can give you. Allah sent 124,000 Messengers for the guidance and governance of mankind. But what did mankind do and how they behaved, history is there my friend.
"Hence, all the misguidance in the Ummah can be blamed on Imam Hassan (ra). SALAVAAT!!!"
And the sins of mankind and Satan having power to mislead them, who do think should be blamed for this? Mankind? Satan? Or the one who allowed it willingly and knowingly? Just showing you your ideology and thinking but through the mirror again.
-
A letter from Ali to Muawiya.
Verily, those who swore allegiance to Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman have sworn allegiance to me on the same basis on which they swore allegiance to them. (On this basis) he who was present has no choice (to consider), and he who was absent has no right to reject; and consultation is confined to the muhajirun and the ansar. If they agree on an individual and take him to be Caliph it will be deemed to mean Allah's pleasure.
If any one keeps away by way of objection or innovation they will return him to the position from where he kept away. If he refuses they will fight him for following a course other than that of the believers and Allah will put him back from where he had run away.
By my life, O Mu'awiyah, if you see with your intellect without any passion you will find me the most innocent of all in respect of `Uthman's blood and you will surely know that I was in seclusion from him, unless you conceal what is quite open to you (and accuse me of a crime I have not committed). Then you may commit any outrage (on me) as you wish and that is an end to the matter.
-
Qiyas? What has qiyas got to do with it?
I said Qiyas of Muawiya being wrong on the basis that Muawiya thought that Army of Imam Ali (a.s) were rebels by their first attacking Muawiya's army while both parties were in negotiating phase.
You wanted a peek inside the head of Muawiya, now you want a peek inside the understanding of how Allah will judge according to Sunni's. I am sorry but I will not do such a thing. All I will say is, killing a believer is not a small thing. You must not forget however that Allah judges according to one's intentions.
Yes, indeed. ALLAH (SWT) judges according to one's intentions. Killing Muslims and believers is a serious matter and it was due to this reason most Sahabas avoided to participate in Civil Wars that took place during the rule of Imam Ali (a.s)
I don't think that is a valid conclusion, but even if, Muawiya was still the ruler of Syria, that is part of the whole problem.
Muawiya was governor of Syria at the time 'Uthman's rule but in the time of Imam Ali's (a.s) rule Muawiya was no longer governor of Syria as the Imam Ali (a.s) had removed him from the governorship. Muawiya and his supporters were rebels in the time of Imam Ali's (a.s) rule.
I don't think that the prohibitions regarding fighting back are so clear that there is no ijtihad possible regarding it.
They are clear as daylight. Prophet (s.a.w.w) had clearly forbidden Muslims to fight Muslim Ruler and commanded Muslims to strike their swords against rocks when Muslims started fighting each other.
Remember two rules given by Prophet (s.a.w.w):
- Draw out Swords when fighting enemies,
- Strike Swords against rocks when fighting each other.
Again, we are not talking about what Muawiya should have done. And if Muawiya thought Ali was held hostage, it would not be his justification for any of his decisions anyway, it was simply how he read the situation. His justification was Qisas for Uthman. And Muawiya or any one else are free to read a situation as they see it.
Muawiya may do whatever he likes but he will be held responsible for his actions. Iblees (l.a) did not bow down to Nabi Adam (a.s) due to Iblees's (l.a) qiyas of him (l.a) being superior as he (l.a) being made of Fire and Adam (a.s) being made of clay. But Iblees's (l.a) qiyas didn't save him from the Wrath of ALLAH (SWT).
For similar reasons as Muawiya not stepping down as ruler of Syria and pledging allegiance to Ali. They both saw the process as even though technically correct, but based on and directly benefiting from an injustice(in the case of Muawiya this was the murder of Uthman and in the case of Ali this was the deception of Abu Musa al Ashari) and therefore unacceptable.
Muawiya was just in demanding Qisas for the murder of 'Uthman but Muawiya was unjust in fighting Muslim Ruler. I hope following scenario would help you understand what I am trying to say.
Scenario: Robbers rob Person A's mobile phone. Person A goes to the Police station and reports the robbery.
Conclusion: Person A has followed the law and therefore he is on the right path.
Scenario: Policeman says that it will take 2 months for the process of the report to be completed and after that police will start the operation of hunting the robbers. Person A get disheartened and frustrated by Policeman's response that he snatches Policeman's mobile and says to him that he will only return his (policeman) mobile back when he would get Person A's mobile back from the robbers.
Conclusion: Person A has not followed the law and has been unjust by snatching policeman's mobile. Policeman has full authority to punish Person A for his disobedient behavior. If Person A fights back policeman then he is guilty of more serious crime.
Al Hassan accepting the rulership obviously was the wisest thing to do. From the beginning he wanted to end this and he basically saw three options. Fighting Muawiya, unite by convincing Muawiya to pledge allegiance to him or unite by pledging allegiance to Muawiya. The first was not really an option for him because he wanted to end this peacefully and he saw no quick way to end this violently. In both remaining cases, it would not make sense to not accept the rulership. It would not make sense to convince Muawiya to give him the Caliphate if he didn't claim the Caliphate in the first place. Likewise, pledging allegiance to Muawiya without the Iraqi's pledging allegiance to al Hassan would have little to no effect as they would just find someone else to pledge allegiance to and rally behind. This is something that al Hassan obviously tried to prevent.
Why could we not expect this from Muawiya? Did Muawiya not want to end this peacefully? Did Muawiya not find it acceptable to pledge allegiance to Imam Hassan (a.s)?
Imam Hassan (a.s) ibn Ali (a.s) found the only way to end civil war was to hand over ruler-ship to Muawiya as Muawiya only wanted ruler-ship. Qisas of 'Uthman was only pretext of Muawiya because if Qisas of 'Uthman was the real motive of Muawiya then the first priority thing for Muawiya after assuming ruler-ship would be to take Qisas of 'Uthman.
-
The reason why nothing adds up for you is because of your lack of age, experience (in discussions) and also lack of knowledge and information.
I am certain I'm older than you and I have rendered more Christian missionaries and missionary Shias helpless than the number of your age in years. The reason why I am harsh with you is because there is nothing you have posted which should be dignified with a mature response. Ever!
You are not willing. You think and behave based on the enmity you have.
You go around and accuse us of being raised with hatred when you are the one with annual reminders of passion stories which do nothing but incite hate and inoculate your mind with garbage.
Logic and reason doesn't mean anything to you. And you aren't willing to get to know and understand.
On the contrary, before I even became a member of any Shia-Sunni forums, I was visiting Shi'i mosques to see how much of what is being broadcasted online is true (or untrue) about them. While most of it can be rubbished as propaganda, I have unfortunately realized that a Shi'i (much like how the Qur'an speaks of certain Jews and Christians) can never be happy with anything we do.
We can believe Imam Ali (ra) was upon haqq, and as Sunnis we unanimously do believe that, but Shias won't quit until we deliver them the blood of Muawiya.
Imam Ali didn't fight Muawiya, he refused allegiance to Ali and wasn't willing to accept him as Caliph. He used the killing of Usman as an excuse to refuse allegiance. You need an excuse because no one comes clean or is that honest about themselves.
Fine! I will pretend you are truthful but since you accused me of being weak with reason and logic, they (reason and logic) dictate that the last thing an "infallible" Guide (Imam Hassan) would do is to give such a man (Muawiya) the power over all Muslims. Especially given the fact that the same man (Muawiya) refused the Caliphate of his father (Imam Ali) and dealt with his father (Imam Ali) in a dishonest manner.
What was the reason behind Safeen. Muawiyah accused Ali of having a hand in the killing. Ali claimed he was absolutely innocent of the matter.
You keep making it worse for yourself. If Muawiya accused Imam Ali (ra) to have corroborated in the killing of Uthman (ra), why would Imam Hassan (ra) give him his "Divinely Ordained Right" of Leadership? Would you honor someone who accuses your father (who is otherwise innocent) of murder with anything rightfully belonging to you?
Ali did what was right and necessary at the time. Hassan analysed the situation through history and learned that Muawiya will not give up or change his ways. He did what was right and necessary at the time based on circumstances.
I don't understand that someone can be this retarded, with all due respect to retards! If Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart then he should have known that Muawiya would not abide by any conditions mentioned in any treaty. Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) hand over the entire Ummah to such a man?
This is like saying the bank knew the borrower could not and would not pay back which is exactly why they gave him the loan. What is wrong with your brain, ya miskeen?
Hussain refused allegiance to Yazeed because of him Tampering with Islam and the corruption he was bringing about within.
There is not a single shred of evidence that Yazeed was tampering with Islam. He had many vices, committed the worst crimes and was a vile human being but he never tampered with Islam. However, your beloved Malik bin Nuwayrah actually sought to abandon the pillar known as Zakat. That is trying to change Islam yet he is "radhiAllahu anhu" to you and other Shias like yourself.
Returning to Yazeed, why don't you also blame Imam Hassan (ra)? Knowing that Muawiya would not honor his promises and appoint his own son (Yazeed), Imam Hassan (ra) vacated the throne to make way for Muawiya. If Imam Hassan (ra) would have kept his position, Muawiya - and by extension, his son Yazeed - would have never assumed power and Imam Hussain (ra) would have not been killed in Karbala.
Hussain didn't go to dethrone Yazeed but was told about the developing situation and was invited by the Kufans.history is there. Read and learn to get tout know.
I remember a Shi'i imam at a mosque denying that. He said it was Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who invented that "lie". You all make up stories and strengthen/weaken reports as they suit you.
Did he have a choice?
This is what breaks the stupidity meter! You have achieved this feat in the past too. When Imam Ali (ra) remained silent after what happened in Saqifah, you say it was because he (Imam Ali) did not have power to fight the Caliph of the time. And when Imam Hassan (ra) was the Caliph of the Muslims, you say he had no choice, therefore he was helpless, in the face of Muawiya.
SubhanAllah, the Companions (ra) of the Holy Prophet (saw) repeatedly rendered the "Infallible Imams" helpless irrespective of their political standing and power. However, the "Infallible Imams" in control of the atoms and in possession of knowledge of past, present and future could not stand up to the Companions (ra) even when they commanded the entire Ummah, lol!
If yes, then what choice was that, continue to fight Muawiya or end the bloodshed?
Then Imam Ali (ra) was wrong for fighting and continuing the bloodshed. Given that Muawiya was using qisas as an excuse to serve an ulterior motive, Imam Ali (ra) should have made peace just like Imam Hassan (ra) did.
It's been 1400 years and still the Ummah is divided over those historical matters and can't gather on one page.
....and every Friday, every month, every year you sit in a congregation that only speaks of such historical matters. In other words, your theology feeds off turmoil, division, bloodshed and chaos which is why we find it to be full of turmoil, division, blood and chaos.
We don't play the blame game or discuss based on division and enmity. We look at realty and facts. Logic and reason is what we go by.
If logic and reason were humans, you would have been in jail for raping them and you dare claim you go by them. Joke!
-
I am certain I'm older than you and I have rendered more Christian missionaries and missionary Shias helpless than the number of your age in years. The reason why I am harsh with you is because there is nothing you have posted which should be dignified with a mature response. Ever!
You go around and accuse us of being raised with hatred when you are the one with annual reminders of passion stories which do nothing but incite hate and inoculate your mind with garbage.
On the contrary, before I even became a member of any Shia-Sunni forums, I was visiting Shi'i mosques to see how much of what is being broadcasted online is true (or untrue) about them. While most of it can be rubbished as propaganda, I have unfortunately realized that a Shi'i (much like how the Qur'an speaks of certain Jews and Christians) can never be happy with anything we do.
We can believe Imam Ali (ra) was upon haqq, and as Sunnis we unanimously do believe that, but Shias won't quit until we deliver them the blood of Muawiya.
Fine! I will pretend you are truthful but since you accused me of being weak with reason and logic, they (reason and logic) dictate that the last thing an "infallible" Guide (Imam Hassan) would do is to give such a man (Muawiya) the power over all Muslims. Especially given the fact that the same man (Muawiya) refused the Caliphate of his father (Imam Ali) and dealt with his father (Imam Ali) in a dishonest manner.
You keep making it worse for yourself. If Muawiya accused Imam Ali (ra) to have corroborated in the killing of Uthman (ra), why would Imam Hassan (ra) give him his "Divinely Ordained Right" of Leadership? Would you honor someone who accuses your father (who is otherwise innocent) of murder with anything rightfully belonging to you?
I don't understand that someone can be this retarded, with all due respect to retards! If Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart then he should have known that Muawiya would not abide by any conditions mentioned in any treaty. Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) hand over the entire Ummah to such a man?
This is like saying the bank knew the borrower could not and would not pay back which is exactly why they gave him the loan. What is wrong with your brain, ya miskeen?
There is not a single shred of evidence that Yazeed was tampering with Islam. He had many vices, committed the worst crimes and was a vile human being but he never tampered with Islam. However, your beloved Malik bin Nuwayrah actually sought to abandon the pillar known as Zakat. That is trying to change Islam yet he is "radhiAllahu anhu" to you and other Shias like yourself.
Returning to Yazeed, why don't you also blame Imam Hassan (ra)? Knowing that Muawiya would not honor his promises and appoint his own son (Yazeed), Imam Hassan (ra) vacated the throne to make way for Muawiya. If Imam Hassan (ra) would have kept his position, Muawiya - and by extension, his son Yazeed - would have never assumed power and Imam Hussain (ra) would have not been killed in Karbala.
I remember a Shi'i imam at a mosque denying that. He said it was Ibn Taymiyyah (rah) who invented that "lie". You all make up stories and strengthen/weaken reports as they suit you.
This is what breaks the stupidity meter! You have achieved this feat in the past too. When Imam Ali (ra) remained silent after what happened in Saqifah, you say it was because he (Imam Ali) did not have power to fight the Caliph of the time. And when Imam Hassan (ra) was the Caliph of the Muslims, you say he had no choice, therefore he was helpless, in the face of Muawiya.
SubhanAllah, the Companions (ra) of the Holy Prophet (saw) repeatedly rendered the "Infallible Imams" helpless irrespective of their political standing and power. However, the "Infallible Imams" in control of the atoms and in possession of knowledge of past, present and future could not stand up to the Companions (ra) even when they commanded the entire Ummah, lol!
Then Imam Ali (ra) was wrong for fighting and continuing the bloodshed. Given that Muawiya was using qisas as an excuse to serve an ulterior motive, Imam Ali (ra) should have made peace just like Imam Hassan (ra) did.
....and every Friday, every month, every year you sit in a congregation that only speaks of such historical matters. In other words, your theology feeds off turmoil, division, bloodshed and chaos which is why we find it to be full of turmoil, division, blood and chaos.
If logic and reason were humans, you would have been in jail for raping them and you dare claim you go by them. Joke!
The reason why you're harsh with me is because you're finding me difficult to handle. You get irritated and angry that's why you come up with counter arguments based on tit for tat just to hang in there.
Stick to the subject. Who are the rebels that were responsible for the killing of Usman? That's what we're discussing. Our happiness doesn't depend on your or what you say and do. You have your belief and that's fine with us. We have ours and that seems to bug you.
You believe Ali was on Haq? Finally. And I'll complete the half statement you've given. Ali was on Haq AND MUAWIYYA THEREFORE WAS ON BATIL. Was that too difficult? That is it. We don't need blood. Take a look at out history, WE GAVE BLOOD and still do. Our legacy is there to be seen and witnessed.
I'm mentioned to you Hassan's position and the circumstances surrounding it. I've also mentioned Ali and Hussein's position and situation. I don't like repeating myself. Refer to my posts.
Allah knows and knew everything so why did he create mankind all over again when he said to the angels that I am going to make a Caliph on earth and the angels responded by saying that they will be the cause of bloodshed by fighting each other.
When Allah knew this and many other things about what we're going to do then why doesn't he just punish people for knowing rather than waiting for them to do and then giving them time till their death to see if they repent and seek forgiveness.
First you not only defend but honour Muawiya and now you claim Sunnis believe Ali was on Haq and you honour Muawiya who happens to be on batil. Or have you created something different for the opposite of Haq? It's these double standards what we point out.
Apart from bank and building societies, there are others who lend or give loans. Did you know that some lend money and give loans regardless of your credit history 😊
-
Going against Quran and Sunnah? His ijtihad also has basis in the Quran. Another case of "hindsight is 20/20" here. Why don't you google what "hindsight is 20/20" mean.
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
Can you provide evidence of your claim? How did Muawiya make ijtihad based on Qur'an that it is permissible to fight Muslim Ruler.
In Qur'an one can find commandment for Muslims to obey Ulul Amr (those in authority) but cannot find anything regarding fighting Ulul Amr. If you believe otherwise then do provide evidence rather than your opinion.
Rebelled? I don't think your imam was in agreement with you:
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
I agree with my Imam (a.s). Both parties were Muslims but disagreement between them arose on the issue of Qisas of Uthman. The moment Muawiya & Syrians rebelled against the authority of Imam Ali (a.s) the former became rebels.
Killing muslims? How could he kill muslims if the other party was the one who brought those muslims into his terratory?
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
As for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
Muawiya's territory? It was Imam Ali's (a.s) territory as all Muslim lands come under the control of Muslim ruler.
Nope. Nothing mystery nor unknown nor unclear. Even your imam admitted to that in the narration I posted above.
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
If Imam Ali (a.s) didn't consider Muawiya and his supporters to be rebels then on what basis did he (a.s) fight them?
Wow! That's sound very much unlike you. Such a desperate response. As pointed out by brother Muslim720, the hadith you quoted might be a plus to Muawiyya rather than minus.
But yeah, no surprise at all since you need to find whatever "perceived fault" to defend your belief in imamah. As I said before, your imaan "feeds" on those "perceived faults".
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
If it was a du'a for Muawiya and not a curse then why did Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Naysaburi narrated this hadith under the chapter: Whomever Is Cursed, Reviled Or Prayed Against By The Prophet (SAW) When He Does Not Deserve That, It Will Be Purification, Reward And Mercy For Him.
Did he killed believers INTENTIONALLY? Hmm...
Sorry to say. Just to go by your deduction, If you applied that to Muawiyya, in fairness, the same should go to Ali too. The battle would have not happened should Ali did not bring his army to Syria (astaghfirullah).
By the way, nothing surprise at all. You have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on that.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 &141 and Al-Hashr: 10).
Imam Ali (a.s) could not fight Muslims as he (a.s) knew fighting Muslims is forbidden but Imam Ali (a.s) could fight rebels as fighting rebels is allowed and encouraged in al-Qur'an.
IN CONCLUSION:
In another thread, you said you wanted to know Sunnis view of the event. However, in here, it is a kind of Tabarra' "fest". Yeah, you can go on with your Tabarra' "fest". Understandbly, you have to say what you are supposed to say about him. Your imaan "feeds" on those.
Again, as for us, we don't dwell on him and those events nor we say anything bad about him too (Al-Baqarah: 134 & 141 & Al-Hashr: 10). In fact, there isn't any need for us to defend whatever happened at that times in the first place. Our fundamental of belief doesn't depend on those events, unlike you.
If you consider talking about past events as Tabarra then its your understanding.
-
Can you provide evidence of your claim? How did Muawiya make ijtihad based on Qur'an that it is permissible to fight Muslim Ruler.
He obviously didn't consider Amir ul Mu'mininRA to be the Muslim Ruler. If he did, he obviously wouldn't have fought against him. That was his ijtihad.
-
He obviously didn't consider Amir ul Mu'mininRA to be the Muslim Ruler. If he did, he obviously wouldn't have fought against him. That was his ijtihad.
Ibless (l.a) obviously didn't consider Adam (a.s) to be the ALLAH'S (SWT) Caliph. If he (l.a) did, he (l.a) obviously wouldn't have considered Adam (a.s) as being inferior to him (l.a). That was his (l.a) ijtihad.
-
Ibless (l.a) obviously didn't consider Adam (a.s) to be the ALLAH'S (SWT) Caliph. If he (l.a) did, he (l.a) obviously wouldn't have considered Adam (a.s) as being inferior to him (l.a). That was his (l.a) ijtihad.
You don't know what Ijtihad is. Ijtihad by definition means seeking to arrive at a judgment in a matter that is not definitive from the sacred texts of divine revelation. Iblis did not make ijtihad since he disobeyed a direct command of Allah. Since Allah did not directly reveal that sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib RA is the Caliph or Ruler, it was a matter of ijtihad for Mu'awiya to reject his caliphate.
-
You don't know what Ijtihad is. Ijtihad by definition means seeking to arrive at a judgment in a matter that is not definitive from the sacred texts of divine revelation. Iblis did not make ijtihad since he disobeyed a direct command of Allah. Since Allah did not directly reveal that sayyidina Ali b. Abi Talib RA is the Caliph or Ruler, it was a matter of ijtihad for Mu'awiya to reject his caliphate.
Great. We both agree ijtihad cannot be done where there is a direct command of ALLAH (SWT).
Muhajirun & Ansar had chosen Imam Ali (a.s) as Muslim ruler. According to direct command of ALLAH (SWT) as given in Quran and Hadiths, Muawiya had only two choices:
1. Pay allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s),
2. If did not give allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s) then in this case Muawiya could not fight Imam Ali (a.s) even if Imam Ali (a.s) brought his Forces in Shaam to kill Muawiya.
If you believe otherwise then bring your evidences & not opinions.
There are clear hadiths which clearly states fighting Muslim ruler or any other Muslim is forbidden and Kufr.
Imam Ali (a.s) never fought (or killed) any Muslim in his life. He (a.s) only fought & killed Mushriks, Jews, Rebels & Khawarij.
Muawiya on the other hand fought & killed Muslims even during the rule (Khilafat) of Imam Ali (a.s)
-
The reason why you're harsh with me is because you're finding me difficult to handle. You get irritated and angry that's why you come up with counter arguments based on tit for tat just to hang in there.
Yes, I find it hard to deal with your stupidity. I have never encountered anyone with as many idiotic posts as you. I never thought I'd say this but you have overtaken Link as the single most stupid user on this forum.
Stick to the subject. Who are the rebels that were responsible for the killing of Usman? That's what we're discussing.
The identity of the rebels was not what I was discussing. I am only proving to you the inconsistency and lack of coherence in your beliefs and the fact that the Imams (ra) - if we apply your beliefs and standards - were consistently overpowered by other Companions (ra).
Imam Ali (ra) did not have the Caliphate so he had to submit to Abu Bakr (ra). Then you turn around and say that Imam Hassan (ra), too, submitted to Muawiya (for the well-being of the Ummah). Abu Bakr (ra), Muawiya, etc, must have had some super powers to nullify the power of those who had control over the atoms.
You believe Ali was on Haq? Finally.
Now you are playing dumb because you do not wish to comment on the dichotomies within your beliefs I have been pressing you on.
WE GAVE BLOOD and still do.
Not my problem that you, in a state of blinded frenzy, hit yourselves with blades, knives and chains. If you were civilized, you would have not turned into worldwide mockery.
I'm mentioned to you Hassan's position and the circumstances surrounding it. I've also mentioned Ali and Hussein's position and situation. I don't like repeating myself. Refer to my posts.
...and I have repeatedly poked holes in your explanations which you fail to address.
Who was right: Imam Ali (ra) for fighting Muawiya OR Imam Hassan (ra) for making peace with Muawiya? If you say that Imam Hassan (ra) saved lives by making peace then you are accusing Imam Ali (ra) of contributing to bloodshed by not backing out.
Allah knows and knew everything so why did he create mankind all over again when he said to the angels that I am going to make a Caliph on earth and the angels responded by saying that they will be the cause of bloodshed by fighting each other.
What Allah (swt) Did and Willed is in the Qur'an. We do not even have the identity, let alone qualities and powers, of your Imams (ra) in the Qur'an.
First you not only defend but honour Muawiya and now you claim Sunnis believe Ali was on Haq and you honour Muawiya who happens to be on batil.
Now you will know why I call you every name in the book. If you were smart, you would have noticed I never put "ra" after mentioning Muawiya. That is my personal opinion. Secondly, I am highlighting Muawiya's achievements to burn you. I say he overpowered Imam Hassan (ra) to stick it to you. Our beliefs, shaped by the Qur'an and Sunnah, can allow for Imam Hassan (ra) to make peace with Muawiya. Your obscure theology leaves no reason why an infallible Imam, who is also the Caliph of the time, should make peace with Muawiya. And we see that at every turn, Muawiya outdid your Imam, lol.
Apart from bank and building societies, there are others who lend or give loans. Did you know that some lend money and give loans regardless of your credit history 😊
Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim. And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs. Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man? Why?
That is why I say Muawiya blanked your Imams (ra), lol!
If it was cricket, and co-incidentally you believe in 12 Imams (ra), lol, its like Muawiya got them all out for duck!
-
Great. We both agree ijtihad cannot be done where there is a direct command of ALLAH (SWT).
Muhajirun & Ansar had chosen Imam Ali (a.s) as Muslim ruler. According to direct command of ALLAH (SWT) as given in Quran and Hadiths, Muawiya had only two choices:
Incorrect. That is not an example of a direct command of Allah. Short of there being an actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه it is a matter of Ijtihad. It is not from the Masa'il al Mansusa. For it to be a Nass it has to be qati ad-dalalah and qati ath-thubut, i.e., definitive in substantiating and the divine text being definitive in being established itself. Otherwise it is not Mansus and therefore a matter of Ijtihad. Furthermore, there was not total agreement of the Ummah upon the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه for it to be considered an Ijma. By all counts, this was a matter of Ijtihad, and while Mu'awiya's Ijtihad turned out to be incorrect, he still had the right to make Ijtihad. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:
إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ، وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
"When a judge judges with Ijtihad and is correct for him are two rewards, and when he judges with ijtihad but errs for him is only a single reward."
-
Yes, I find it hard to deal with your stupidity. I have never encountered anyone with as many idiotic posts as you. I never thought I'd say this but you have overtaken Link as the single most stupid user on this forum.
The identity of the rebels was not what I was discussing. I am only proving to you the inconsistency and lack of coherence in your beliefs and the fact that the Imams (ra) - if we apply your beliefs and standards - were consistently overpowered by other Companions (ra).
Imam Ali (ra) did not have the Caliphate so he had to submit to Abu Bakr (ra). Then you turn around and say that Imam Hassan (ra), too, submitted to Muawiya (for the well-being of the Ummah). Abu Bakr (ra), Muawiya, etc, must have had some super powers to nullify the power of those who had control over the atoms.
Now you are playing dumb because you do not wish to comment on the dichotomies within your beliefs I have been pressing you on.
Not my problem that you, in a state of blinded frenzy, hit yourselves with blades, knives and chains. If you were civilized, you would have not turned into worldwide mockery.
...and I have repeatedly poked holes in your explanations which you fail to address.
Who was right: Imam Ali (ra) for fighting Muawiya OR Imam Hassan (ra) for making peace with Muawiya? If you say that Imam Hassan (ra) saved lives by making peace then you are accusing Imam Ali (ra) of contributing to bloodshed by not backing out.
What Allah (swt) Did and Willed is in the Qur'an. We do not even have the identity, let alone qualities and powers, of your Imams (ra) in the Qur'an.
Now you will know why I call you every name in the book. If you were smart, you would have noticed I never put "ra" after mentioning Muawiya. That is my personal opinion. Secondly, I am highlighting Muawiya's achievements to burn you. I say he overpowered Imam Hassan (ra) to stick it to you. Our beliefs, shaped by the Qur'an and Sunnah, can allow for Imam Hassan (ra) to make peace with Muawiya. Your obscure theology leaves no reason why an infallible Imam, who is also the Caliph of the time, should make peace with Muawiya. And we see that at every turn, Muawiya outdid your Imam, lol.
Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim. And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs. Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man? Why?
That is why I say Muawiya blanked your Imams (ra), lol!
If it was cricket, and co-incidentally you believe in 12 Imams (ra), lol, its like Muawiya got them all out for duck!
I absolutely love being entertained by you. Your really make me laugh. You keep avoiding what's being discussed and you bring irrelevant stuff just to make your post lengthy so you can feel good.
Now back to what is being discussed, Usman got killed, who were the killers of Usman? Can you or Muawiya or Aisha along with Talah and Zubayr tell us.
We can only start an investigation if you give us some kind of statement on who you think we're the killers or responsible for the killing and why. Otherwise we have absolutely nothing to move forward on and the case is closed.
Usman's wife didn't give any statement what so ever. You can't give a clear statement. The people of Jamal and Safeen, who were jumping up and down about bringing the killers to justice and the Qisas for Usman's blood, couldn't come up with any names and a motive for the killing.
We and Ali can't help you. 😊
-
I absolutely love being entertained by you. Your really make me laugh. You keep avoiding what's being discussed and you bring irrelevant stuff just to make your post lengthy so you can feel good.
The solution for everything you have said - making you laugh, avoiding what is being discussed and bringing irrelevant stuff - is for you to stop projecting. You seem to project your own flaws onto others when it is you who does those things (avoid the main points and introduce irrelevant elements to a discussion).
Now back to what is being discussed, Usman got killed, who were the killers of Usman? Can you or Muawiya or Aisha along with Talah and Zubayr tell us.
Allow me to prove how you introduce irrelevant points in a discussion. On page 4, as I was mentioning Muawiya's blessings (and how he was not killed, his wife was never attacked, etc), you brought up his "relative", in other words, Uthman (ra) [see post 74]. In my line of using your own beliefs against you, in the next post, I said that Uthman's (ra) wife was far more braver than the Shi'i version of Imam Ali (ra). You used that bit to open another front regarding the identity of the killers of Uthman (ra).
In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba. The killers of Uthman (ra) is not my premise but your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing the deceits and ruthlessness of Muawiya - never mind his rebellion against his father (Imam Ali) - handed the Caliphate and the fate of the entire Ummah to Muawiya.
In our worldview, Muawiya is just a pixel. In your theology, the Imams (ra) are the only picture.
We can only start an investigation if you give us some kind of statement on who you think we're the killers or responsible for the killing and why. Otherwise we have absolutely nothing to move forward on and the case is closed.
You are one strange and unique piece of work. It is like as though your only aim is to stall discussions. This case was closed because no one was discussing it.
Now, why would your "infallible" Imam (ra) give his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya? Did he want Muawiya to destroy Islam?
Why is it that your Imams (ra) were constantly out-muscled even when they had the Caliphate?
Why did your Imams (ra) contradict each other (one makes peace, the other wages war)?
How is it that Muawiya lived prosperously whereas your "infallibles" (ra) were chased everywhere so much so that they would have to issue contradictory fatwa thereby introducing misguidance when their only job was to guide?
Usman's wife didn't give any statement what so ever. You can't give a clear statement. The people of Jamal and Safeen, who were jumping up and down about bringing the killers to justice and the Qisas for Usman's blood, couldn't come up with any names and a motive for the killing.
Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also did not give any statements and they were present at Uthman's (ra) house. Time to question them! Along with Talhah (ra), Zubayr (ra), Aisha (ra) and others, you might also want to interrogate your 2nd and 3rd "infallibles" (ra). Best of luck!
We and Ali can't help you. 😊
lol, your 12 "infallibles" (ra) could not help themselves even when they were in power. I was never holding my breath awaiting their help :P
-
"Okay, dimwit, so we can say Muawiya's credit history was pretty bad, per your claim. And who knew this better than Imam Hassan (ra), staying with your beliefs. Then why did Imam Hassan (ra) still give the Caliphate to such a man? Why?"
I've already told you and here it is again just to put your mischief to rest. We are talking about INFALLIBILITY here right. Infallible this and infallible that.
Allah knows everything and I mean everything even before it enters your mind and or heart. Never mind about going and saying or doing something be it action or practice. Allah knows who is going to heaven and who to hell and why,
so why didn't he just create and put his creation in to heaven and hell? I mean he has the knowledge and he also is infallible. Why wait or allow to begin with? Do you think mankind got the better of Allah Muslim 720?
What about Satan? Yes, what about Satan. Did he get the better of Allah as well? Not only that Allah gave in to the demands of Satan and not only allowed but also equipped him well to lead mankind astray. Allah is infallible but how did Satan get the better of him Muslim 720?
The Prophet s.a.w is also infallible and we all know how the Mushriks/Kafirs of Mecca treated him. When finally the Prophet s.a.w took Mecca why didn't he put them in place? Did the Prophet s.a.w not love the martyres such as Hamza and what happened to him. How Hindh got people to mutilate his body.
Why didn’t the Prophet s.a.w punish them for their wicked crimes? Why did the Prophet s.a.w allow them to enter Islam when he knew what the Ummayads are going to do when they get into authority and gain power?
-
First of all Muslim 720 we are talking about knowledge of the unseen and unknown which is called "Ilm e Ghaib'. Yes we do believe the Aimmah had some knowledge of the unseen and unknown. But what does this mean?
If you have such knowledge are you suppose to use it to your advantage. Or stop nature or the natural process from taking place. Or prevent unfortunate incidents and events from taking place. Ask yourself this, if this is the case then,
Allah has complete and absolute knowledge of the unseen and unknown, why didn't and doesn't he? Instead of Hassan put Allah in the equation and ask yourself the same question.
We also believe that the Prophet s.a.w was informed about the unfortunate events of Karbala and wept over it. Why don't you ask us why he didn't do anything about it.
It's about infallibility and Ilm e Ghaib which you have no knowledge, information and understanding about. I know it doesn't matter what I say, you're just hellbent in disagreeing. You're just going to come up with counter arguments or irrelevant stuff. 😊
-
The solution for everything you have said - making you laugh, avoiding what is being discussed and bringing irrelevant stuff - is for you to stop projecting. You seem to project your own flaws onto others when it is you who does those things (avoid the main points and introduce irrelevant elements to a discussion).
Allow me to prove how you introduce irrelevant points in a discussion. On page 4, as I was mentioning Muawiya's blessings (and how he was not killed, his wife was never attacked, etc), you brought up his "relative", in other words, Uthman (ra) [see post 74]. In my line of using your own beliefs against you, in the next post, I said that Uthman's (ra) wife was far more braver than the Shi'i version of Imam Ali (ra). You used that bit to open another front regarding the identity of the killers of Uthman (ra).
In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba. The killers of Uthman (ra) is not my premise but your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra), despite knowing the deceits and ruthlessness of Muawiya - never mind his rebellion against his father (Imam Ali) - handed the Caliphate and the fate of the entire Ummah to Muawiya.
In our worldview, Muawiya is just a pixel. In your theology, the Imams (ra) are the only picture.
You are one strange and unique piece of work. It is like as though your only aim is to stall discussions. This case was closed because no one was discussing it.
Now, why would your "infallible" Imam (ra) give his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya? Did he want Muawiya to destroy Islam?
Why is it that your Imams (ra) were constantly out-muscled even when they had the Caliphate?
Why did your Imams (ra) contradict each other (one makes peace, the other wages war)?
How is it that Muawiya lived prosperously whereas your "infallibles" (ra) were chased everywhere so much so that they would have to issue contradictory fatwa thereby introducing misguidance when their only job was to guide?
Imam Hassan (ra) and Imam Hussain (ra) also did not give any statements and they were present at Uthman's (ra) house. Time to question them! Along with Talhah (ra), Zubayr (ra), Aisha (ra) and others, you might also want to interrogate your 2nd and 3rd "infallibles" (ra). Best of luck!
lol, your 12 "infallibles" (ra) could not help themselves even when they were in power. I was never holding my breath awaiting their help :P
"In reality, my entire purpose in this topic is to use your own beliefs to stick it to you and Ijtaba."
Now that is absolutely irrelevant to the thread and its title.😀
The case of bringing Usman's killers to justice should be closed. The people of Jamal and Safeen just used it to trump up their grudge about Ali getting into power. I know it was hard for them to digest it. One needs an excuse.
How on earth do you think they were demanding Ali to bring the killers to justice when no one had a flaming clue who they were to begin with.
-
I've already told you and here it is again just to put your mischief to rest. We are talking about INFALLIBILITY here right. Infallible this and infallible that.
Yes, infallibility coupled with knowledge of the unseen or having the ability to know anything they desire.
so why didn't he just create and put his creation in to heaven and hell? I mean he has the knowledge and he also is infallible. Why wait or allow to begin with? Do you think mankind got the better of Allah Muslim 720?
If I could have had a dollar for every time a Shi'i acts dumb and disrespects the Qur'an when their made-up beliefs come under scrutiny. Of the many ways I can tackle your question, I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's (swt) Plan. What we do is obey what He has revealed in the Qur'an. And the reason for creation, free will and predestination, and everything else is in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith. If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles. Clearly your seniors and scholars have busied you with frivolous things.
However, there is no comparison because Allah (swt) states the reason for all the things you have brought up in the Qur'an. The concept of Imamah, in contrast, let alone the identity and qualities of the Imams, are absent from the Qur'an. You cannot use an established concept to give weight to a fairytale!
What about Satan? Yes, what about Satan. Did he get the better of Allah as well? Not only that Allah gave in to the demands of Satan and not only allowed but also equipped him well to lead mankind astray. Allah is infallible but how did Satan get the better of him Muslim 720?
Again, false equivalence, not to mention that Allah (swt) is always in control whereas your Imams (ra) were always controlled.
The Prophet s.a.w is also infallible and we all know how the Mushriks/Kafirs of Mecca treated him. When finally the Prophet s.a.w took Mecca why didn't he put them in place?
As per your admission, that the Prophet (saw) triumphed over the mushriks of Mecca, the polytheists were overpowered and have been eradicated. Till date, they have not assumed any dominance in the Holy Land. In contrast, when did your Imams (ra) ever establish dominance? The Companions (ra) struck such fear in their hearts that the last one is still in hiding, lol!
Allah has complete and absolute knowledge of the unseen and unknown, why didn't and doesn't he? Instead of Hassan put Allah in the equation and ask yourself the same question.
SubhanAllah! And you all foam at the mouth that we limit Allah (swt). I wonder if you think before you type.
We also believe that the Prophet s.a.w was informed about the unfortunate events of Karbala and wept over it. Why don't you ask us why he didn't do anything about it.
The authentic report only says that the Prophet (saw) was informed that his Ummah, not polytheists but his Ummah, will kill Imam Hussain (ra). No dates or whereabouts were revealed! How long will you play dumb?
It's about infallibility and Ilm e Ghaib which you have no knowledge, information and understanding about.
No, trust me, I understand. It is simple logic. Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart, especially after his rebellion against Imam Ali (ra), and in spite of being in power, Imam Hassan (ra) gave the Caliphate to Muawiya as though saying, "here, kill all the Muslims and eradicate Islam". How do you justify that? How can there be such stark contradiction between the actions of two infallibles, father and son?
How on earth do you think they were demanding Ali to bring the killers to justice when no one had a flaming clue who they were to begin with.
All along, I have been conceding in feet to gain miles. Your position is so airtight that you cannot even concede a millimeter, lol!
I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) or anything about the group. He used that as an excuse to dethrone Imam Ali (ra). It still does not change the fact, nor does it explain why, Imam Hassan (ra) handed the future of Muslims and Islam to him! Keep running from this point, lol!
-
Yes, infallibility coupled with knowledge of the unseen or having the ability to know anything they desire.
If I could have had a dollar for every time a Shi'i acts dumb and disrespects the Qur'an when their made-up beliefs come under scrutiny. Of the many ways I can tackle your question, I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's (swt) Plan. What we do is obey what He has revealed in the Qur'an. And the reason for creation, free will and predestination, and everything else is in the Qur'an and authentic Hadith. If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles. Clearly your seniors and scholars have busied you with frivolous things.
However, there is no comparison because Allah (swt) states the reason for all the things you have brought up in the Qur'an. The concept of Imamah, in contrast, let alone the identity and qualities of the Imams, are absent from the Qur'an. You cannot use an established concept to give weight to a fairytale!
Again, false equivalence, not to mention that Allah (swt) is always in control whereas your Imams (ra) were always controlled.
As per your admission, that the Prophet (saw) triumphed over the mushriks of Mecca, the polytheists were overpowered and have been eradicated. Till date, they have not assumed any dominance in the Holy Land. In contrast, when did your Imams (ra) ever establish dominance? The Companions (ra) struck such fear in their hearts that the last one is still in hiding, lol!
SubhanAllah! And you all foam at the mouth that we limit Allah (swt). I wonder if you think before you type.
The authentic report only says that the Prophet (saw) was informed that his Ummah, not polytheists but his Ummah, will kill Imam Hussain (ra). No dates or whereabouts were revealed! How long will you play dumb?
No, trust me, I understand. It is simple logic. Imam Hassan (ra) knew what was in Muawiya's heart, especially after his rebellion against Imam Ali (ra), and in spite of being in power, Imam Hassan (ra) gave the Caliphate to Muawiya as though saying, "here, kill all the Muslims and eradicate Islam". How do you justify that? How can there be such stark contradiction between the actions of two infallibles, father and son?
All along, I have been conceding in feet to gain miles. Your position is so airtight that you cannot even concede a millimeter, lol!
I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not know the killers of Uthman (ra) or anything about the group. He used that as an excuse to dethrone Imam Ali (ra). It still does not change the fact, nor does it explain why, Imam Hassan (ra) handed the future of Muslims and Islam to him! Keep running from this point, lol!
Shias don't act dumb and neither do we disrespect the Qur'an. We've seen plenty of baseless accusations thrown at us for sometime now. Nothing new here. The only one acting dumb here is you.
"I will start by saying that we do not have the capacity to know Allah's plan"
And that exactly slams your theory about losing control. I wonder what took you. Here you don't know Allah's plan and there you don't know the motive, reason and plan of the infallible either. So stop making judgements from yourself and trying to believe and make bbelieve.
I've answered the situation of Ali, Hassan and Hussein many times completely and thoroughly. Refer to my previous posts.
"If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles"
I've spent a lot of time in Sunni circles and sources of information but they're not as arrogant and stubborn as you. They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.
All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.
-
"If you really do not know these basics, I suggest you spend some time in Sunni circles"
I've spent a lot of time in Sunni circles and sources of information but they're not as arrogant and stubborn as you. They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.
All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.
Lol what a contradiction 😂
“Sunni circles are not arrogant and stubborn they don’t twist stuff!”
“I have sat in Sunni circles they twist principles having a set mindset against shiites”
What planet is this guy on??😂
-
Incorrect. That is not an example of a direct command of Allah. Short of there being an actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه it is a matter of Ijtihad. It is not from the Masa'il al Mansusa. For it to be a Nass it has to be qati ad-dalalah and qati ath-thubut, i.e., definitive in substantiating and the divine text being definitive in being established itself. Otherwise it is not Mansus and therefore a matter of Ijtihad. Furthermore, there was not total agreement of the Ummah upon the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه for it to be considered an Ijma...
Same could be said for preceding Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman) as no actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman. Therefore their caliphate was matter of ijtihad. People may or may not give them bayah.
Imam Ali (a.s) in one of his letter to Muawiya recorded in Shi'ite Nahjul Balagha states that Imam Ali (a.s) was made Khalifa on the same principles (i.e. Shura of Muhajirun and Ansar) as his predecessors were made Khalifa.
Was there Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s)? If no then provide me authentic references of this claim because I have no knowledge* of those Sahabas (besides Muawiya & Syrians) who did not pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s).
*My saying no knowledge does mean I have researched in detail the issue of Ijma of Sahabas on Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s) but it means I lack knowledge regarding this issue because I have yet got no information which discuss this issue in detail. Your providing me references would increase my knowledge and make me well-informed about the issue (of Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali a.s)
...By all counts, this was a matter of Ijtihad, and while Mu'awiya's Ijtihad turned out to be incorrect, he still had the right to make Ijtihad. The Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم said:
إِذَا حَكَمَ الْحَاكِمُ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَصَابَ فَلَهُ أَجْرَانِ، وَإِذَا حَكَمَ فَاجْتَهَدَ ثُمَّ أَخْطَأَ فَلَهُ أَجْرٌ
"When a judge judges with Ijtihad and is correct for him are two rewards, and when he judges with ijtihad but errs for him is only a single reward."
Incorrect. Muawiya was not in a position to make ijtihad as he was not Hakam of Shaam but on the contrary it was Imam Ali (a.s) who was the Hakam of Muslim Ummah (including Shaam)
If you disagree with my statement then provide evidence for your claim that Khalifa elected by Muhajirun and Ansar cannot be Hakam of all Muslim lands but only of those lands whose people gave bayah to Khalifa elected by Muhajirun and Ansar.
-
Same could be said for preceding Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman) as no actual verse in the Quran or a definitive Hadith from the Prophet صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم on the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar and 'Uthman. Therefore their caliphate was matter of ijtihad. People may or may not give them bayah.
It's an arguable point. However, if I concede to you, for the sake of argument, that those who disputed the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه like sayyidina Saad bin Ubada رضى الله عنه, the fact still remains that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه gave bay'ah to and acknowledged the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه. Therefore, at least from your point of view, his caliphate was not Ijtihad since someone you consider an infallible Imam pledged his allegiance to him and acknowledged his caliphate.
Critical question: If the caliphates of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were invalid, why didn't Amir ul Mu'minin رضى الله عنه rise up against them or at the very least boycott them absolutely, rather than remaining within their inner circles, advising them, and obeying their orders?
Imam Ali (a.s) in one of his letter to Muawiya recorded in Shi'ite Nahjul Balagha states that Imam Ali (a.s) was made Khalifa on the same principles (i.e. Shura of Muhajirun and Ansar) as his predecessors were made Khalifa.
Exactly, and this proves that Imam Ali عليه السلام والرضوان considered the caliphate to be established by consultation and not divinely appointed. I've written on this on my blog http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/08/doctrine-of-imamate-refuted-in-nahj-ul.html
Was there Ijma of Sahabas on the Caliphate of Imam Ali (a.s)? If no then provide me authentic references of this claim because I have no knowledge* of those Sahabas (besides Muawiya & Syrians) who did not pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (a.s).
The disagreement of Muawiya and the Syrians is itself proof there was not an Ijma. Ijma means total agreement or at least virtual agreement of the Ummah. And you should know that in the wars of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه like Jamal and Siffin, there was a third party of Sahaba who refused to acknowledge either side. This included sayyidina Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abi Musa al-Ashari رضى الله عنهما and some other prominent names. They were absolutely neutral in those conflicts, so that is another proof there was no established Ijmaa on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه such that one who rejects it is astray or a disbeliever.
-
Shias don't act dumb and neither do we disrespect the Qur'an. We've seen plenty of baseless accusations thrown at us for sometime now. Nothing new here. The only one acting dumb here is you.
You literally disrespected the Qur'an. Read your previous post! The decrease in your verbal diarrhea shows you have exhausted all fallacies that now you have to resort to making statements.
And that exactly slams your theory about losing control. I wonder what took you. Here you don't know Allah's plan and there you don't know the motive, reason and plan of the infallible either. So stop making judgements from yourself and trying to believe and make bbelieve.
Allah (swt) has a Plan and the Qur'an clearly highlights it. The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination.
I've answered the situation of Ali, Hassan and Hussein many times completely and thoroughly. Refer to my previous posts.
No you have not! You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer.
They don't keep coming by twisting and turning and with the same stuff over and over again.
All I've found in Sunni circles is double standards, elements of hypocrisy, twisting of Principles, having a mindset and sticking to it and being against Shias 100% no matter what.
While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot? Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion. Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements.
-
It's an arguable point. However, if I concede to you, for the sake of argument, that those who disputed the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه like sayyidina Saad bin Ubada رضى الله عنه, the fact still remains that sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه gave bay'ah to and acknowledged the caliphate of sayyidina Abi Bakr al-Siddiq رضى الله عنه. Therefore, at least from your point of view, his caliphate was not Ijtihad since someone you consider an infallible Imam pledged his allegiance to him and acknowledged his caliphate.
According to me, I believe the seats of authorities such as Nubuwwat, Risalat, Imamat, Khilafat & Malookiat are all decided and chosen only by ALLAH (SWT). There can be no Shura in deciding and/or choosing who is to become Prophet, Messenger, Leader, Caliph or King.
Coming to the point that you have given I believe that after the people (including Imam Ali a.s) had given bayah to Abu Bakr the latter had become legitimate ruler of Muslim Ummah. Similar was the case with Umar and Uthman. After Imam Ali (a.s) and people had given them (i.e. Umar and 'Uthman) bayah then both of them had become legitimate Rulers of Muslim Ummah.
Critical question: If the caliphates of Abi Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were invalid, why didn't Amir ul Mu'minin رضى الله عنه rise up against them or at the very least boycott them absolutely, rather than remaining within their inner circles, advising them, and obeying their orders?
According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.
After giving bayah to Abu Bakr publicly by Imam Ali (a.s) it would be wrong for him (a.s) to rise against (and fight) Abu Bakr as the latter (Abu Bakr) was now the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
Exactly, and this proves that Imam Ali عليه السلام والرضوان considered the caliphate to be established by consultation and not divinely appointed. I've written on this on my blog http://islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com/2018/08/doctrine-of-imamate-refuted-in-nahj-ul.html
The disagreement of Muawiya and the Syrians is itself proof there was not an Ijma. Ijma means total agreement or at least virtual agreement of the Ummah. And you should know that in the wars of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه like Jamal and Siffin, there was a third party of Sahaba who refused to acknowledge either side. This included sayyidina Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Abi Musa al-Ashari رضى الله عنهما and some other prominent names. They were absolutely neutral in those conflicts, so that is another proof there was no established Ijmaa on the caliphate of sayyidina Ali رضى الله عنه such that one who rejects it is astray or a disbeliever.
In the same letter Imam Ali (a.s) mentioned that Shura was limited to Muhajirun and Ansar whereas Muawiya and Syrians weren't Muhajir nor Ansar. So Muawiya and Syrians had to respect the decision made by Muhajirun and Ansar by Shura (regarding the person they elected as Ruler of Muslim Ummah)
About bayah and not participating in Civil Wars, both are different things. I heard that there were Sahabas who had given bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) but avoided taking part in Civil Wars as they feared fighting Muslims (as they considered Muawiya and Syrians to be Muslims). Imam Ali (a.s) did not force them (Sahabas) to participate in those wars.
I heard about Saad bin abi Waqqas and Abdullah ibn Umar not giving bayah to Imam Ali (a.s) as well as agreeing not to fight against Imam Ali (a.s). Do you know besides following four Sahabas (Saad, Abu Musa, ibn Umar, Muawiya) which other prominent Sahabas did not give bayah to Imam Ali (a.s)?
-
According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.
In your pretense of taking the high road, you will not respond to my post but I would comment on this because my objective is the decimation of your core concepts.
The Imams (ra), and their entire rulership, was doomed from the start. They could not bring things about due to lack of support and when they actually were the Caliphs, they failed to do much anyways (save one who deferred his "Divinely Ordained Right" to Muawiya).
So what did these "infallible" Imams (ra), having control over the atoms, need to see their mission to completion? They failed with or without support and/or Caliphate. Why is it an usool for me to believe in such people who could not manage their own affairs, let alone shoulder the responsibility of the Ummah?
-
According to me, I believe the seats of authorities such as Nubuwwat, Risalat, Imamat, Khilafat & Malookiat are all decided and chosen only by ALLAH (SWT). There can be no Shura in deciding and/or choosing who is to become Prophet, Messenger, Leader, Caliph or King.
In other words, you believe that all government has to be divinely appointed or its illegitimate?
What about in the absence of your Imam, i.e., the greater occultation, do you view all governments as illegitimate with the exception of the Wilayat al Faqih in Iran?
Secondly, do you mind proving that for a King or any other kind of ruler to be valid he has to be appointed by Allah?
Coming to the point that you have given I believe that after the people (including Imam Ali a.s) had given bayah to Abu Bakr the latter had become legitimate ruler of Muslim Ummah. Similar was the case with Umar and Uthman. After Imam Ali (a.s) and people had given them (i.e. Umar and 'Uthman) bayah then both of them had become legitimate Rulers of Muslim Ummah.
That is quite interesting. So you have departed from the orthodox position of the Ithna Ashariyah which views those three caliphates as illegitimate and the three caliphs as usurpers.
Now you say that the caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم were legitimate, but earlier you wrote that Caliphate has to be divinely appointed, along with 3 other categories (Prophethood, Messengership, and Kingship).
Does that mean the caliphates of the 3 caliphs were divinely appointed by Allah? Please explain.
According to us (Shias) Imam Ali (a.s) did go to Muhajirun and Ansar door to door asking them to support him (a.s) by reminding them of his (a.s) rights and nearness to the Prophet (s.a.w.w) but only four people (Salman, Abu Dharr, Miqdad and Zubayr) came to his (a.s) support. It was because of this reason Imam Ali (a.s) did not rise against Abu Bakr.
In light of your earlier comments that the 3 Caliphs رضى الله عنهم were "legitimate Muslim rulers" it seems you are contradicting yourself here. Please explain in detail what you mean. Amir ul-Mu'minin Ali b. Abi Talib رضى الله عنه not only did not rise against Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman رضى الله عنهم he pledged allegiance to each of them, which you acknowledged. If it was merely an issue of not having enough support to launch an uprising, then you'd think Amir ul-Mu'minin Ali b. Abi Talib رضى الله عنه would at least stay aloof from the 3 caliphs, but he clearly did not, instead professing his allegiance to each of them.
After giving bayah to Abu Bakr publicly by Imam Ali (a.s) it would be wrong for him (a.s) to rise against (and fight) Abu Bakr as the latter (Abu Bakr) was now the Ruler of Muslim Ummah.
Of course. Question is, why would Amir ul Muminin Ali رضى الله عنه give bayah to a Caliph that isn't divinely appointed thus illegitimate? I would love to know your explanation.
-
You literally disrespected the Qur'an. Read your previous post! The decrease in your verbal diarrhea shows you have exhausted all fallacies that now you have to resort to making statements.
Allah (swt) has a Plan and the Qur'an clearly highlights it. The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination.
No you have not! You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer.
While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot? Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion. Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements.
"You literally disrespected the Qur'an"
Show me were and how?
"The same is not true regarding the Imams (ra) whose Imamah, let alone power and then plan, is not established except it is a figment of Shi'i imagination"
We've had 124,000 Messengers and out of those let me give you an example of just only one. NOAH, he was a Messenger and how many people did he make believe? Did you know how long he preached for and how many came believers? How successful was he? And there shouldn't be any doubt about him.
Go do some research on just only him and that should silence you along with that that foul mouth and dirty tongue of yours. Look at the words and language you use.
"No you have not! You have only stated your position and while I'm poking holes in your defense, you have been unable to offer any satisfactory answer"
I've given plenty of answers, examples and much explanation. But you are just one stubborn and arrogant..........
"While the brother beat me to it, do you now see why I call you an idiot?"
Yeh I do. Because you're one yourself, that's wife. 😀 It takes one to know one.
"Usually, you contradict yourself in a discussion. Here, you have one-upped yourself by contradicting yourself in two consecutive statements"
Where and how? All I get from you is baseless accusations. It's not my fault if you get knocked down while sparring here. 😀 What the hell would you do if you were in a Match.
-
Lol what a contradiction 😂
“Sunni circles are not arrogant and stubborn they don’t twist stuff!”
“I have sat in Sunni circles they twist principles having a set mindset against shiites”
What planet is this guy on??😂
Take time out and away from arrogance and ignorance and look around you. You'll be amazed I'm from the same planet as you........😆😆😆
-
Take time out and away from arrogance and ignorance and look around you. You'll be amazed I'm from the same planet as you........😆😆😆
No your not you are an alien believing in an alien idea and comparing divine prophets to normal human beings and giving them promotions on the basis of some alien belief system.Thats the TRUTH!
Na nu na nu✌️😉
-
Show me were and how?
Listen ostrich, you can bury your head in sand but I pointed our your insolence. Go and re-read it.
We've had 124,000 Messengers and out of those let me give you an example of just only one. NOAH, he was a Messenger and how many people did he make believe?
Accumulating believers is not the point of our discussion. What baffles me, which you are struggling to account for, is how come the Imams (ra) never had any influence? With or without the Caliphate, their influence was next to nothing. How is it that mere mortal fallible beings outdid the Imams (ra) at every corner and somehow overcame the "Divine Power" they (allegedly) possessed?
And there shouldn't be any doubt about him.
Trouble for you is that you do not understand a simple concept. The Qur'an vouches for Nuh (asws). It says nothing about Imamah or your Imams (ra).
Go do some research on just only him and that should silence you along with that that foul mouth and dirty tongue of yours. Look at the words and language you use.
A filthy person like yourself deserves nothing better.
I've given plenty of answers, examples and much explanation. But you are just one stubborn and arrogant..........
You have not! You keep bringing up the Shi'i excuses which I keep refuting. And you offer no counter-rebuttal except that I should open my mind, read more and that I have a filthy mouth.
If I am so unlearned, why do you have such a hard time accounting for (or defending) your beliefs? Says very little about your theology!
Where and how? All I get from you is baseless accusations. It's not my fault if you get knocked down while sparring here. 😀 What the hell would you do if you were in a Match.
lol, don't worry about my boxing aspirations. Answer for your Imams (ra) who were outdone by Muawiya, lol!
-
Listen ostrich, you can bury your head in sand but I pointed our your insolence. Go and re-read it.
Accumulating believers is not the point of our discussion. What baffles me, which you are struggling to account for, is how come the Imams (ra) never had any influence? With or without the Caliphate, their influence was next to nothing. How is it that mere mortal fallible beings outdid the Imams (ra) at every corner and somehow overcame the "Divine Power" they (allegedly) possessed?
Trouble for you is that you do not understand a simple concept. The Qur'an vouches for Nuh (asws). It says nothing about Imamah or your Imams (ra).
A filthy person like yourself deserves nothing better.
You have not! You keep bringing up the Shi'i excuses which I keep refuting. And you offer no counter-rebuttal except that I should open my mind, read more and that I have a filthy mouth.
If I am so unlearned, why do you have such a hard time accounting for (or defending) your beliefs? Says very little about your theology!
lol, don't worry about my boxing aspirations. Answer for your Imams (ra) who were outdone by Muawiya, lol!
"Listen ostrich, you can bury your head in sand but I pointed our your insolence. Go and re-read it:
When and where? Back it up!
"What baffles me, which you are struggling to account for, is how come the Imams (ra) never had any influence? With or without the Caliphate, their influence was next to nothing"
The following is from the Qur'an (2:62)
"That was because they [repeatedly] disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right"
Who killed the Prophets without right? Obviously the Jews. So according to your theory Muawiya got better of the Imams and theJews got better of the Prophets 😊
-
When and where? Back it up!
Here to refute you not babysit you.
Who killed the Prophets without right? Obviously the Jews. So according to your theory Muawiya got better of the Imams and theJews got better of the Prophets 😊
The lame smiley face resurfaces along with another lame excuse. Firstly, the Qur'an is talking about Prophets (asws) and we hear and we obey. The Qur'an says nothing about your Imams (ra). So we turn to your beliefs and justifications. As per your belief, Imams (ra) are higher than Prophets (asws) so they should fare a little better but we see that they flopped at every turn (as per your narrative). Furthermore, you justify one Imam's (ra) silence in the face of injustice as his helplessness because he did not have enough power (or the Caliphate). And then we see another one of your Imam (ra), despite having the Caliphate and all the physical (worldly) and metaphysical (outer worldly) power, surrender to Muawiya, lol!
It is as though the Imams (ra) never wished to guide and wanted to be left alone. Maybe you are forcing your own understanding (that they were guides) upon them while all they wanted to do was take the backseat.
-
Here to refute you not babysit you.
The lame smiley face resurfaces along with another lame excuse. Firstly, the Qur'an is talking about Prophets (asws) and we hear and we obey. The Qur'an says nothing about your Imams (ra). So we turn to your beliefs and justifications. As per your belief, Imams (ra) are higher than Prophets (asws) so they should fare a little better but we see that they flopped at every turn (as per your narrative). Furthermore, you justify one Imam's (ra) silence in the face of injustice as his helplessness because he did not have enough power (or the Caliphate). And then we see another one of your Imam (ra), despite having the Caliphate and all the physical (worldly) and metaphysical (outer worldly) power, surrender to Muawiya, lol!
It is as though the Imams (ra) never wished to guide and wanted to be left alone. Maybe you are forcing your own understanding (that they were guides) upon them while all they wanted to do was take the backseat.
"Here to refute you not babysit you."
That's fine. You're liar and a false accuser.
The following is from the Qur'an (2:62)
"That was because they [repeatedly] disbelieved in the signs of Allah and killed the prophets without right"
Who killed the Prophets without right? Obviously the Jews. So according to your theory Muawiya got better of the Imams and the Jews got better of the Prophets 😊
"And then we see another one of your Imam (ra), despite having the Caliphate and all the physical (worldly) and metaphysical (outer worldly) power, surrender to Muawiya, lol!"
😀 You haven't done your homework. You have no knowledge what so ever. Read history and get to know first. Then you won't need to jump up and down 😊
-
That's fine. You're liar and a false accuser.
Your insolence is out in the open for every one to see.
Who killed the Prophets without right? Obviously the Jews. So according to your theory Muawiya got better of the Imams and the Jews got better of the Prophets 😊
But the Imams (ra), who are higher than Prophets (asws) - according to you - should have fared better given that Risalah saw its mission to a completion through our Holy Prophet (saw). Yet these all-powerful Imams (ra) have not even established their own Imamah, let alone establish their dominance, lol.
When they did not have material power, you excused them. When they had material (worldly) power, they excused themselves, lol. What a travesty for you all!
😀 You haven't done your homework. You have no knowledge what so ever. Read history and get to know first. Then you won't need to jump up and down 😊
Or you could have just said that you have ran out of your excuses and fallacious arguments, lol.
-
Your insolence is out in the open for every one to see.
But the Imams (ra), who are higher than Prophets (asws) - according to you - should have fared better given that Risalah saw its mission to a completion through our Holy Prophet (saw). Yet these all-powerful Imams (ra) have not even established their own Imamah, let alone establish their dominance, lol.
When they did not have material power, you excused them. When they had material (worldly) power, they excused themselves, lol. What a travesty for you all!
Or you could have just said that you have ran out of your excuses and fallacious arguments, lol.
Your post # 153, below is a quote;
"You literally disrespected the Qur'an. Read your previous post!"
All I've asked you is to EXPLAIN YOURSELF here.
How and where did I disrespected the Qur'an, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
-
Your post # 153, below is a quote;
"You literally disrespected the Qur'an. Read your previous post!"
All I've asked you is to EXPLAIN YOURSELF here.
How and where did I disrespected the Qur'an, PLEASE EXPLAIN.
Way to run from having to explain your Imams' (ra) incompetency, lol! Can we return to the actual discussion?
-
Way to run from having to explain your Imams' (ra) incompetency, lol! Can we return to the actual discussion?
Absolutely nothing to do with RUNNING. You accused me of something SERIOUS. Either explain when and where or take it back.
-
Absolutely nothing to do with RUNNING. You accused me of something SERIOUS. Either explain when and where or take it back.
Still waiting 😊
-
Still waiting 😊
For the hidden Imam? He ain't coming out any time soon, like ever!
-
For the hidden Imam? He ain't coming out any time soon, like ever!
Waiting for you to tell me where and when I disrespected the Qur'an. This is what you accused me of. You should hide yourself in shame rather than having a dig. You're a filthy liar.
-
Waiting for you to tell me where and when I disrespected the Qur'an. This is what you accused me of. You should hide yourself in shame rather than having a dig. You're a filthy liar.
Cave man isn't coming out and I am a "filthy liar"? "Filthy liar" is the one who sold you the cave man story. And you are an unfortunate idiot to believe it!
-
Cave man isn't coming out and I am a "filthy liar"? "Filthy liar" is the one who sold you the cave man story. And you are an unfortunate idiot to believe it!
You accused me of disrespecting the Qur'an. Are you going to tell me where and when I did that, are you going to take the false accusation back or are you just an accuser without reason and ground? 😊
-
You accused me of disrespecting the Qur'an. Are you going to tell me where and when I did that, are you going to take the false accusation back or are you just an accuser without reason and ground? 😊
It is not a false accusation. Every time we press you with the dichotomous actions of your "infallible" Imams (ra), you bring up Qur'anic passages when they are not one in the same. What the Qur'an says regarding Allah (swt) and Iblees can never be used to justify why Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his Caliphate to Muawiya. There are many reason why that argument is absurd the most obvious of them all being the fact that Imamah is absent from the Qur'an. So I do not know why you would lie upon the Qur'an, therefore degrade and disrespect it, by using it to support your own whims.
-
It is not a false accusation. Every time we press you with the dichotomous actions of your "infallible" Imams (ra), you bring up Qur'anic passages when they are not one in the same. What the Qur'an says regarding Allah (swt) and Iblees can never be used to justify why Imam Hassan (ra) gave up his Caliphate to Muawiya. There are many reason why that argument is absurd the most obvious of them all being the fact that Imamah is absent from the Qur'an. So I do not know why you would lie upon the Qur'an, therefore degrade and disrespect it, by using it to support your own whims.
You sound and behave like a person who lacks in knowledge and information but is desperate to discuss and debate to show himself better. And the only thing you have to show yourself with is ignorance.
Rather than admitting or accepting you come up with twists and turns and various manoeuvres. And then you go patting yourself on the back and cheering yourself up.
You have absolute disregard for the title of the thread and what we're actually discussing on that thread. You bring in irrelevant issues and matters which have got nothing to do with the thread and what we're are discussing.
All you come up with is cussing and taunting. And when cornered you come out with tantrums and frustration. What is the title of the thread and what are we actually discussing? Then take a look at your posts.
What do you come up with, 'Ali couldn't protect his wife" Cave man is still hiding' bla bla bla and etc etc etc. Would you like me to give you an entire list of irrelevant things you've brought in 😊
-
You sound and behave like a person who lacks in knowledge and information but is desperate to discuss and debate to show himself better. And the only thing you have to show yourself with is ignorance.
I am not better. It is just that you cannot even begin to address my arguments, let alone refute them.
Rather than admitting or accepting you come up with twists and turns and various manoeuvres. And then you go patting yourself on the back and cheering yourself up.
These are not maneuvers; they are genuine points of concern. I would be very concerned (about the things I have said) if I were a Shi'i.
You have absolute disregard for the title of the thread and what we're actually discussing on that thread. You bring in irrelevant issues and matters which have got nothing to do with the thread and what we're are discussing.
All you come up with is cussing and taunting. And when cornered you come out with tantrums and frustration. What is the title of the thread and what are we actually discussing? Then take a look at your posts.
My thesis has been consistent. The "infallible" Imams (ra) failed, if we accept your theology. They failed under all circumstances. Shias excuse them when they did not have power and when they had power, they excused themselves and took the backseat. So much for them being the "Guides".
What do you come up with, 'Ali couldn't protect his wife" Cave man is still hiding' bla bla bla and etc etc etc. Would you like me to give you an entire list of irrelevant things you've brought in 😊
Again, failure to protect his wife or failure to face the world is FAILURE! My thesis re-affirmed!
-
I am not better. It is just that you cannot even begin to address my arguments, let alone refute them.
These are not maneuvers; they are genuine points of concern. I would be very concerned (about the things I have said) if I were a Shi'i.
My thesis has been consistent. The "infallible" Imams (ra) failed, if we accept your theology. They failed under all circumstances. Shias excuse them when they did not have power and when they had power, they excused themselves and took the backseat. So much for them being the "Guides".
Again, failure to protect his wife or failure to face the world is FAILURE! My thesis re-affirmed!
Then what you need to do is pick one matter or subject and then discuss that in depth and in detail then move on to the next, rather than bringing in different matters and separate subjects and throwing them in the same pot and creating an absolute mixture that we're neither here nor there. 😊
-
I am not better. It is just that you cannot even begin to address my arguments, let alone refute them.
These are not maneuvers; they are genuine points of concern. I would be very concerned (about the things I have said) if I were a Shi'i.
My thesis has been consistent. The "infallible" Imams (ra) failed, if we accept your theology. They failed under all circumstances. Shias excuse them when they did not have power and when they had power, they excused themselves and took the backseat. So much for them being the "Guides".
Again, failure to protect his wife or failure to face the world is FAILURE! My thesis re-affirmed!
"I am not better. It is just that you cannot even begin to address my arguments, let alone refute them"
That's what you think. As far as I'm concerned I've answered your questions, addressed your points and responded to each and every comment you've made and concern you've put forward. You on the other hand only choose what you want to answer, address or comment on.
"These are not maneuvers; they are genuine points of concern. I would be very concerned (about the things I have said) if I were a Shi'i"
We are not hesitant or concerned. We've been dealing with such accusations and arguments based on propaganda for the last 1400 years. Nothing bothers or shocks us.
"Again, failure to protect his wife or failure to face the world is FAILURE! My thesis re-affirmed!"
You speak immature. Do you even know what failure is? Let me give you an example according to your own understanding again.
FAILURE. Do you believe in the coming of Mahdi? I'm sure you do as a Sunni. Why is he going to come and what is he going to do? Because the world will be filled with evil and injustice and he will fill it with justice and fairness.
So according to your theory Muhammad s.a.w and his final message along with his efforts failed otherwise why would the world fill with unfairness and injustice and what would be the need for Mahdi.
See how ridiculous your theory and understanding is. 😊
-
That's what you think. As far as I'm concerned I've answered your questions, addressed your points and responded to each and every comment you've made and concern you've put forward.
At best, you have offered us our own answers. In other words, you are telling me what I believe. I have no qualms with my beliefs; I have an issue with your beliefs. The essence of Imamah is violated by none other than the Imams (ra). There is not a single person who contradicts Imamah more thoroughly than the Imams (ra) themselves.
What you cannot and will not do is offer reconciliation between Shi'i beliefs and the actions of the Imams (ra).
We are not hesitant or concerned. We've been dealing with such accusations and arguments based on propaganda for the last 1400 years. Nothing bothers or shocks us.
In other words, you have gone mind numb! You cannot, or refuse to, see how the Imams (ra) went against every clause within Imamah (which are laid down by Shias).
You speak immature. Do you even know what failure is? Let me give you an example according to your own understanding again.
The inability to protect your own wife is failure. I feel sorry for the one who will marry you.
FAILURE. Do you believe in the coming of Mahdi? I'm sure you do as a Sunni. Why is he going to come and what is he going to do? Because the world will be filled with evil and injustice and he will fill it with justice and fairness.
So according to your theory Muhammad s.a.w and his final message along with his efforts failed otherwise why would the world fill with unfairness and injustice and what would be the need for Mahdi.
The Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission. The very fact that one of his descendants, who is also from his Ummah, will establish fairness and justice is a testimony to the Holy Prophet's (saw) success because Imam Mahdi (as) will establish justice by re-implementing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw). Furthermore, this descendant will bring back justice, NOT INTRODUCE JUSTICE, by emulating the Holy Prophet (saw).
In summary, the Holy Prophet (saw) not only lived and succeeded in his mission but his followers will continue upon it and the only source of justice is following and implementing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw).
You, on the other hand, cannot even accept Muawiya as your leader when it was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who made him the leader of the Muslims! Will you, as a Shi'i, dare emulate Imam Hassan's (ra) action and accept Muawiya as your leader?
Now let us see which actions of the Imams (ra) can you implement and follow.
1. They never declared their Imamah. Will you follow them in not preaching and following Imamah? You won't!
2. They could not establish their control upon the Ummah (even when they had the Caliphate). Will you accept and admit this reality, let alone abide by it? You won't!
3. Keeping Shi'i expectations and beliefs in mind, the Imams (ra) did the exact opposite of what was expected of them. Will you, for example, accept Muawiya as your leader as did Imam Hassan (ra)? Or will you concede Fadak? You won't!
4. The Imams (ra) contradicted each other in action. Will you uphold one's actions over the other's? You won't!
As you can see, upholding the "sunnah" of the Imams (ra) will force you into negating Shi'ism!
See how ridiculous your theory and understanding is. 😊
See how absurd your analogy was!
-
At best, you have offered us our own answers. In other words, you are telling me what I believe. I have no qualms with my beliefs; I have an issue with your beliefs. The essence of Imamah is violated by none other than the Imams (ra). There is not a single person who contradicts Imamah more thoroughly than the Imams (ra) themselves.
What you cannot and will not do is offer reconciliation between Shi'i beliefs and the actions of the Imams (ra).
In other words, you have gone mind numb! You cannot, or refuse to, see how the Imams (ra) went against every clause within Imamah (which are laid down by Shias).
The inability to protect your own wife is failure. I feel sorry for the one who will marry you.
The Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission. The very fact that one of his descendants, who is also from his Ummah, will establish fairness and justice is a testimony to the Holy Prophet's (saw) success because Imam Mahdi (as) will establish justice by re-implementing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw). Furthermore, this descendant will bring back justice, NOT INTRODUCE JUSTICE, by emulating the Holy Prophet (saw).
In summary, the Holy Prophet (saw) not only lived and succeeded in his mission but his followers will continue upon it and the only source of justice is following and implementing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (saw).
You, on the other hand, cannot even accept Muawiya as your leader when it was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who made him the leader of the Muslims! Will you, as a Shi'i, dare emulate Imam Hassan's (ra) action and accept Muawiya as your leader?
Now let us see which actions of the Imams (ra) can you implement and follow.
1. They never declared their Imamah. Will you follow them in not preaching and following Imamah? You won't!
2. They could not establish their control upon the Ummah (even when they had the Caliphate). Will you accept and admit this reality, let alone abide by it? You won't!
3. Keeping Shi'i expectations and beliefs in mind, the Imams (ra) did the exact opposite of what was expected of them. Will you, for example, accept Muawiya as your leader as did Imam Hassan (ra)? Or will you concede Fadak? You won't!
4. The Imams (ra) contradicted each other in action. Will you uphold one's actions over the other's? You won't!
As you can see, upholding the "sunnah" of the Imams (ra) will force you into negating Shi'ism!
See how absurd your analogy was!
"I have no qualms with my beliefs"
And neither do we when it comes to our beliefs.
"I have an issue with your beliefs"
And we have issues with yours. So the feeling is mutual and the burden and responsibility of answering and explaining lies upon both. 😊
"There is not a single person who contradicts Imamah more thoroughly than the Imams (ra) themselves"
Well if that was the case and the matter was as crystal clear as that then they're wouldn’t have been an issue, would there?
I put forward and explanation and ask to answer and you disregard it. Once again what was the belief and faith of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? And did he believe in absolutely everything he has in his book? If the matter was as simple and as straightforward as you've said,
"There is not a single person who contradicts Imamah more thoroughly than the Imams (ra) themselves"
then where does the belief and faith of the author/writer (Al-Kulayni) go?😊
"The Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission"
Exactly, so where did this unfairness and injustice come from? Is Caliphate going to be the actual cause? And it's going to be at the absolute peak and high, that's how worse it's going to get before the coming of Al Mahdi.
So according to your theory the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission, so what's going to or is going wrong if the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission?😊
"Furthermore, this descendant will bring back justice, NOT INTRODUCE JUSTICE, by emulating the Holy Prophet (saw)"
So who introduced justice? If the answer is that the Prophet s.a.w did then what exactly happened to that justice? You must ponder on this and accept that Caliphate is what messed things up and Saqifa was just only the beginning of things going wrong.😊
"You, on the other hand, cannot even accept Muawiya as your leader when it was your 2nd "infallible" Imam (ra) who made him the leader of the Muslims!"
😊 He didn't make him the leader of the Muslims. You have no knowledge about the peace treaty.
-
THE PEACE TREATY OF HUDAYBIA
The incident of Hudaibiyah reserves in history a significant phase of Islam when Muslims got an opportunity to unexpectedly notch gains from the jaws of an apparent defeat.
It was the sixth year of Hijrah since the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his supporters had left the beloved city of Makkah. They were eager to visit the holy Kaaba and perform tawaf (circumambulation).
The pagans of Makkah had meanwhile confronted Muslims three times in the Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, and the Battle of Trench. And despite winning in at least two of the battles (in Uhud, they had to retreat), Muslims were still not strong enough to dare counter attack on the large force of the Makkan pagans.
The Hudaibiyah encounter occurred meanwhile that not only gave Muslims courage to go ahead with the mission, but it also tested their courage and faith in Islam.
So tell me what is your analysis on the peace treaty of Hudaybia? Do you believe that just as Hassan gave into Muawiya Prophet s.a.w gave into the Makkan Pagans? Just as Hassan couldn’t empower Muawiya Muhammad s.a.w and the Muslims couldn’t empower the Makkan Pagans.
So according to your analysis this means Hassan couldn't empower Muawiya so the peace treaty with Muawiya means Hassan accepted Muawiya as his leader, then this would mean Muhammad s.a.w couldn’t empower the Makkan Pagans so the peace treaty with them means Muhammad s.a.w accepted them as their leader? Is this what treaty means to you?😊
-
I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer
-
Well if that was the case and the matter was as crystal clear as that then they're wouldn’t have been an issue, would there?
Quantity but no quality! You offered nothing as rebuttal to negate my assertion that the Imams (ra) themselves contradicted the concept of Imamah (thereby shattering its credibility) more thoroughly than anyone else.
I put forward and explanation and ask to answer and you disregard it. Once again what was the belief and faith of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? And did he believe in absolutely everything he has in his book? If the matter was as simple and as straightforward as you've said,
Where did Al-Kafi come from? As a matter of fact, just a side-note, the compiler of Al-Kafi believed in the authenticity of the reports.
then where does the belief and faith of the author/writer (Al-Kulayni) go?😊
The compiler of Al-Kafi went to people who upheld their own nafs above Islam. In fact, these people were those whom the Imams (ra) cursed.
Exactly, so where did this unfairness and injustice come from? Is Caliphate going to be the actual cause? And it's going to be at the absolute peak and high, that's how worse it's going to get before the coming of Al Mahdi.
So according to your theory the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission, so what's going to or is going wrong if the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission?😊
To put it another way, since you like to play dumb, the fact that Sunnah has to be re-implemented is a testimony to the success enjoyed by the Holy Prophet (saw).
If you were to establish the success model suggested by Wilayah, what will you implement? Do you even have a model? The only two "infallible" Imams (ra) who had the Caliphate did everything that you despise. One gave up the Caliphate, both made some sort of peace with Muawiya (with varying degrees in the outcome), contradict each other in actions and decisions, forego Fadak, etc.
The success of the Holy Prophet (saw) is that he left us a model which can be re-implemented to establish justice. The failure of Wilayah is the lack of any realistic model. And the model you might ascribe to them is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions.
So who introduced justice? If the answer is that the Prophet s.a.w did then what exactly happened to that justice? You must ponder on this and accept that Caliphate is what messed things up and Saqifa was just only the beginning of things going wrong.😊
Now watch how your own idiotic statement will slap you in the face. I do not know how you can go from justice to Caliphate or Saqifa messing things up. However, if I accept your claim (that Caliphate messed things up) then why did Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) accept the Caliphate (if it was a cursed system)?
Honesty and you are polar opposites but if you were honest for one day and re-read your comments, you would see that all your allegations (in one way or another) are also accusations against your own "infallible" Imams (ra).
😊 He didn't make him the leader of the Muslims. You have no knowledge about the peace treaty.
Preceded by a stupid smiley face, thank you for proving that you are not a follower of, and will not follow, Imam Hassan (ra). I laughed out loud when I read, "He didn't make him the leader of the Muslims". Fine! Muawiya forced his way to the throne. Again, my point! Muawiya out-muscled an "infallible" Imam (ra) who possessed both worldly and outer-worldly power, lol. Muawiya must have been in a class by himself, above the Imams (ra), lol!
And staying on the topic of honesty, you accuse me of not having knowledge of the peace treaty between Imam Hassan (ra) and Muawiya and in the next post, you copy-paste the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. I am not surprised! This is how you (Shias) are programmed. They teach you "concept A" by pointing you to "concept B" which, by the way, is totally unrelated to "concept A". And so, it shows that there is a fundamental flaw in Shi'i teaching and learning centers starting with the teachers.
-
I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer
I see you say, "Treaty of Hudaibiya" and then you say "Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya". You call one treaty and the other just a pact? And then you go again by saying "Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa" and then you say "allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader".
See how you put this forward by praising one and undermining the other. By mitigating Hassan's authority, personality and charactert and by raising and uplifting the other. This tells a lot about your mindset to begin with.
Now the answer to your question. First of all acknowledge and understand that they were both a treaty. Then you also need to acknowledge and understand the reason behind the treaty and the circumstances and conditions attached to them. All you have is a mindset and that's what you go by. And then you ask just to undermine and catch out based on point scoring. Your answer will come next. Don't worry 😊
-
I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer
Now the answer to your question,
"In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen?"
No he didn't? Now a question to you, the circumstances related to this treaty were they in the benefit of the Muslims on a short and long term basis? Allow me to put some circumstances relating to the treaty of Hudaibiya.
These are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah:
1. There will be an armistice between the two parties and no fighting for the next 10 years.
2. Any person or tribe who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Likewise any person or tribe who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so.
3. If any Makkan went to Madinah, then Muslims would return him to Makkah, but if any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah, he would not be returned.
4. If any young man, or one whose father is alive, goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish of Makkah, will not be returned.
5. This year the Muslims will go back without entering Makkah. But next year Muhammad and his followers can enter Makkah, spend three days and perform the Umrah.
Take a look at the conditions 3 and 4. Do you see them in favour of the Muslims and how? Where does your questions and doubts go here?
-
Now the answer to your question,
"In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen?"
No he didn't? Now a question to you, the circumstances related to this treaty were they in the benefit of the Muslims on a short and long term basis? Allow me to put some circumstances relating to the treaty of Hudaibiya.
These are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah:
1. There will be an armistice between the two parties and no fighting for the next 10 years.
2. Any person or tribe who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Likewise any person or tribe who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so.
3. If any Makkan went to Madinah, then Muslims would return him to Makkah, but if any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah, he would not be returned.
4. If any young man, or one whose father is alive, goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish of Makkah, will not be returned.
5. This year the Muslims will go back without entering Makkah. But next year Muhammad and his followers can enter Makkah, spend three days and perform the Umrah.
Take a look at the conditions 3 and 4. Do you see them in favour of the Muslims and how? Where does your questions and doubts go here?
None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.
As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.
You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.
But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).
-
None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.
As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.
You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.
But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).
Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.
-
Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.
Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.
-
Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.
I do feel bad for the guy, he's just too emotionally driven to actually discuss anything being said to him. He hasn't been taught the basics of his religion, Islam or Shi'asm, he has only been taught to hate non-12ers. His whole tirade isn't out of any supposed love for Ahl al-Bayt, but rather out of hatred for the "other side." This is what sectarianism does to you, والله المستعان
-
None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.
As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.
You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.
But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).
Be it the treaty between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah or be it the treaty between Hassan, son of Ali and Muawiyya ibn abu Sufyaan the self appointed Amir of Syria, None of the terms of both treaty violate any doctrine or article of Islam.
Neither did Muhammad s.a.w give up His divine authority nor did Hassan give up His divine authority. Because divine authority is not something you give up. Just as Muhammad s.a.w made peace and the terms and conditions of the treaty gave the opposite side the upper hand Hassan did the same.
Muhammad s.a.w and Hassan both acted in the long term benefit of the Muslims. But the Muslims turned out more ruthless and savage than the Makkan Pagans by butchering the progeny of the Prophet s.a.w in Karbala and taking the rest as prisoners and severely mistreating them.
Don't mix the man made status of Caliphate at Saqifa with divine authority. Hassan never accepted Muawiya as his ruler or gave allegiance to him. He just stepped aside to stop the innocent blood of Muslims being spilled from both sides over this worldly status of Caliphate. Muawiyah on the other hand didn’t care how many more lives would be lost.
-
I do feel bad for the guy, he's just too emotionally driven to actually discuss anything being said to him. He hasn't been taught the basics of his religion, Islam or Shi'asm, he has only been taught to hate non-12ers. His whole tirade isn't out of any supposed love for Ahl al-Bayt, but rather out of hatred for the "other side." This is what sectarianism does to you, والله المستعان
😀 Read my posts and then look into the mirror to see yours since you can't see clearly and you will find where the hatred lies. Oh let me tell you, the hatred lied among Bani Ummayah for Bani Hashim and now it lies with Sunni extremists for the Shias who want to bring about the Islamic Caliphate system through bloodshed and butchering just like the Ummayads 😊 If you can't get your way or authority and power then use violence and threatening behaviour to your advantage.
-
Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.
"Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt"
Really. If that was the case then why would you spend so much time creating such sites and refuting it. 😊😀😁😂😃😅
-
Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.
ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE NAILED IT. If there wasn't a vendetta then just only three people wouldn't have all of a sudden slipped away to Saqifa in secrecy and without informing others.
If there wasn't a vendetta then when the Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper there wouldn't have been an objection and chaos would have been caused to create an obstacle 😊
-
ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE NAILED IT. If there wasn't a vendetta then just only three people wouldn't have all of a sudden slipped away to Saqifa in secrecy and without informing others.
If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).
If there wasn't a vendetta then when the Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper there wouldn't have been an objection and chaos would have been caused to create an obstacle 😊
The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would. In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper. Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.
You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.
-
If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).
The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would. In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper. Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.
You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.
So you're saying to me that those people who had influence, wealth and support and who were willing to use it if things didn't go their way (Saqifa) or those (Safeen) who did use it and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour and created a civil war, because they actually weren't happy with who (Ali, Hassan) got into authority,
were better and stronger than those who also had influence, wealth and support but never used it to support violence and threatening behaviour just to have their way or their demands met and who always had the benefit of the Muslims and the welfare of Islam at heart? 😊
-
If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).
The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would. In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper. Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.
You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.
Basically Umar's attitude and behaviour towards the Prophet s.a.w doesn't alarm you. You want to look for excuses here and there just divert the attention from Umar and his response to the Prophet's s.a.w call for pen and paper.
-
If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).
The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would. In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper. Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.
You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.
"The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would"
It's not about what I was hoping or what we're trying to prove. See what I mean, you always make this personal rather than keeping it a general discussion. As long as you have that mindset and continue to discuss along the lines of YOU V US, we will remain in circles.
It's what the Prophet s.a.w asked for and why. And Umar could have remained silent if not showing obedience towards the Prophet s.a.w by either rushing towards fetching pen and paper or calling for the Prophet s.a.w to be given pen and paper. Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".
This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it. And it's about you having blind loyalty for Umar and therefore looking for excuse to protect him. Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction? Stick to the subject and for once in your life be honest with yourself.
"In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper"
First of all Umar objected and was the cause of a row. There were people who supported Umar and said that the pen and paper shouldn't brought and given and there was a group that said otherwise. Basically an argument started and a row erupted. And the beloved companions were the cause of it, no one else. Some loyal, obedient and supportive companions, wouldn't you say.
-
It's what the Prophet s.a.w asked for and why. And Umar could have remained silent if not showing obedience towards the Prophet s.a.w by either rushing towards fetching pen and paper or calling for the Prophet s.a.w to be given pen and paper. Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".
This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it. And it's about you having blind loyalty for Umar and therefore looking for excuse to protect him. Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction? Stick to the subject and for once in your life be honest with yourself.
What was Umar's intention behind pen and paper incident? I just wonder...
-
So you're saying to me that those people who had influence, wealth and support and who were willing to use it if things didn't go their way (Saqifa) or those (Safeen) who did use it and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour and created a civil war, because they actually weren't happy with who (Ali, Hassan) got into authority,
were better and stronger than those who also had influence, wealth and support but never used it to support violence and threatening behaviour just to have their way or their demands met and who always had the benefit of the Muslims and the welfare of Islam at heart? 😊
I am only saying that your Imams (ra) failed, according to your theology. They did not do anything to help Shiaism (they did not reclaim Fadak, they did not strive to establish their "Divinely Ordained Rights", etc).
Can you, for once, address my claim? They failed but you disagree! Without bringing up irrelevant points, how did they not fail?
Basically Umar's attitude and behaviour towards the Prophet s.a.w doesn't alarm you. You want to look for excuses here and there just divert the attention from Umar and his response to the Prophet's s.a.w call for pen and paper.
Umar's (ra) attitude towards the Prophet (saw) alarms me as much as Imam Ali's (ra) attitude towards the Prophet (saw) when the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was being drafted. Both were acts of love, not disobedience.
The issue is that you cannot apply different standards to the two scenarios. If Umar's (ra) attitude alarms you in a negative way, Imam Ali's (ra) attitude should also bother you.
It's not about what I was hoping or what we're trying to prove. See what I mean, you always make this personal rather than keeping it a general discussion. As long as you have that mindset and continue to discuss along the lines of YOU V US, we will remain in circles.
Since you are too sensitive, let me say it in a different way. The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not declare the Wilayah of Imam Ali (ra), something the Shias claim he (saw) would have dictated to be written down (which is why the Prophet (saw) asked for pen and paper).
Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".
Imam Ali (ra) objected to the Prophet's (saw) request while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah. In fact, Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) that he would not do what the Prophet (saw) had instructed him to do.
First of all Umar objected and was the cause of a row
Do you know that among reports in Sahih Bukhari speaking about the "Tragedy of Thursday", there are quite a few that make no mention of Umar (ra)? In case your reasoning faculties are impaired, which I am certain they are, it implies that Umar (ra) was possibly not the central figure in this event. In other words, he was not the "cause of a row".
Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction?
Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet (saw) asked for certain words to be struck or erased would you be the first to towards obedience or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction?
Some loyal, obedient and supportive companions, wouldn't you say
...and Imam Ali (ra) stood around like a spectator much like how he did the same later when his wife was attacked.
I am willing to assume Umar (ra) was disobedient but where did Imam Ali's (ra) obedience go? Could he not fetch a pen and paper? How about in the three proceeding days? A mere spectator: Imam Ali (ra), according to Shi'ism!
-
😀 Read my posts and then look into the mirror to see yours since you can't see clearly and you will find where the hatred lies. Oh let me tell you, the hatred lied among Bani Ummayah for Bani Hashim and now it lies with Sunni extremists for the Shias who want to bring about the Islamic Caliphate system through bloodshed and butchering just like the Ummayads 😊 If you can't get your way or authority and power then use violence and threatening behaviour to your advantage.
بارك الله فيك for proving my point. You view everyone who is not in your sect as trying to use violence and threatening behavior and all those other ad hominems, when have you ever heard me say or even suggest violence or forcing anyone to accept my position? Do you really hold that view on every non-12er in the world? Now we know where Islamphobia started.
Nevertheless, I will come out and say it, I do not believe in the use of force, nor do I like how the Ummayids treated people who went against their rule (which was the Muslims, since 12ers didn't exist at the time.) I believe they oppressed MUSLIMS and therefore I disagree with them.
I have also stated time and time again to you that I am anti-Saudi and, I'll add, I'm anti-"revolutionary groups." I think states like Iran and Saudi, "groups" like Hizbullah and Daesh are oppressors and people blinded by sectarianism being played behind the scenes by the US and Russia, much like the nawasib and the rawafid of yester-year were continuing the the wars of the Romans vs Persians.
-
"Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt"
Really. If that was the case then why would you spend so much time creating such sites and refuting it. 😊😀😁😂😃😅
For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt.
But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism", so you don't realize there's a whole world of debates out there between liberals and conservatives, Muslims vs Christians, Theists vs Atheists and so on. Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me, you don't seem to be aware of this. Have you heard about Muhammad Hijab and Adnan Rashid's latest dismembering of the Christians they debated? Have you heard about Asrar Rashid debating the Atheist last week (haven't seen it so I can't comment)? Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters.
-
Be it the treaty between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah or be it the treaty between Hassan, son of Ali and Muawiyya ibn abu Sufyaan the self appointed Amir of Syria, None of the terms of both treaty violate any doctrine or article of Islam.
Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.
We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.
Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.
Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.
Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?
Neither did Muhammad s.a.w give up His divine authority nor did Hassan give up His divine authority.
Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.
Muhammad s.a.w and Hassan both acted in the long term benefit of the Muslims.
How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?
But the Muslims turned out more ruthless and savage than the Makkan Pagans by butchering the progeny of the Prophet s.a.w in Karbala and taking the rest as prisoners and severely mistreating them.
How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.
Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?
Hassan never accepted Muawiya as his ruler or gave allegiance to him. He just stepped aside to stop the innocent blood of Muslims being spilled from both sides over this worldly status of Caliphate.
In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!
How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?
-
What was Umar's intention behind pen and paper incident? I just wonder...
Your focus is on the intention only, why is that? Why continue to disregard everything else and focus on what you desire? 😊 Let me address the other point for you.
There are a group of people around the Prophet s.a.w including me and you. The Prophet s.a.w asks for pen and paper, what would you and I do? I don't know about you but I would absolutely, definitely and most certainly run to find and fetch a pen and paper to serve the Prophet s.a.w. It's just as bloody simple as that. 😊
WHAT WOULD YOU DO ? 😊
What ever you, I or anyone else do tells a lot about our intentions. My intentions are clear by my action, to rush to find a pen and paper and try to be the first and that would be OBEDIENCE and to get to know a very serious and important matter which is about to be written down.
Now WHAT WOULD YOU DO? What ever you do would tell your intention. What ever Umar did and caused and those who sided with him tells about their intentions.
-
Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.
We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.
Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.
Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.
Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?
Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.
How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?
How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.
Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?
In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!
How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?
"Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه."
We do not share this view. We differ with the above that Hassan gave allegiance to Muawiya.
"Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to"
Yes we do share this and believe that Hassan resigned from office and gave up and stepped aside from the position and title of Caliphatul Muslimeen.
"Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?"
Simple and straightforward answer, NO.
"Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims."
Again simple and straightforward answer, NO.
"How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?"
This is exactly where the misunderstanding is which is causing confusion. Allow me to explain this.
There are two things here which are being mixed or you are seeing it as one and the same thing. Our doctrine is Imamah. We believe that Hassan was the Imam of the people appointed by Allah and introduced by the Prophet s.a.w. That's what we believe in.
We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa.
And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority. This is exactly where the misunderstanding is and is the cause of confusion.
Hassan resigned and stepped aside from the man made authority and accepted title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not the divine appointment and title of Imamah. I will explain this further Inshallah!
-
Yes, that is our [Ahl us-Sunnah] position. However, the Twelver shiites believe that sayyidina Hasan bin Ali رضى الله عنهما was a divinely appointed Imam and hence no one but him had the right to rule over the Muslim Ummah.
We do not hold to this doctrine, thus the treaty with Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه presents no difficulty for us.
Now according to the treaty, sayyidina Hasan resigned from the office of ruling the Muslims.
Furthermore, at least according to our narrations (and perhaps yours as well - we can investigate the issue), sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه gave the Bay'a to Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه.
Whether you believe he gave the bay'a or not, it is at least agreed that he resigned from his office which you as a Twelver believe he was divinely appointed to.
Now let me ask you, can a divinely appointed Imam resign from something which he has a divine right to?
Sayyidina Hasan gave up his divine authority to rule over the Muslims.
How is it in the long term benefit to resign from that which God Himself appointed you to?
How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere.
Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, because you said Imam Hasan رضى الله عنه gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads for the LONG TERM benefit of Muslims. Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?
In your doctrine the "worldly status of Caliphate" is the divine right of the 12 Imams and no one else!!!
How could Imam Hasan "step aside" from his divine right?
"How is this relevant to our present discussion? Btw those Muslims were Kufan ex-Shiites as we already discussed elsewhere"
We've already discussed this. There were no Shias or even Sunnis at the time. It was the Muslims and no one but the Muslims. And you still haven't answered my question, why did the Kufans write to Hussain? What was the reason and point? We need to establish why the Kufans wrote to Hussain to understand the situation by getting to know the facts.
"gave up the rule in favor of Umayyads"
No he didn't. That's your assumption based on twisting and turning things around so you can get your desired conclusion of the discussion. If he favoured the Ummayads or the peace treaty favoured them then you aren't familiar with the conditions Hassan put down. Bring forward those conditions and have the discussion fairly and properly rather than coming up with bits and pieces.
"Yet within a decade or thereabouts of having done so the Ahl al-Bayt are massacred by forces loyal to Umayyads. How is that a long term benefit?"
What the Ummayads did with the authority and power and what they got up to blame them and the Muslims Ummah who were so careless and irresponsible rather than the victims (progeny of the Prophet s.a.w).
What happened after the massacre of Karbala? Madina was torched and set alite, women and girls were raped and the people of Madina, Sahaba and their offspring's weren't spared either. Who are you going to blame here?
Since you're playing the blame game, rather than blaming Hassan why not blame the Prophet s.a.w for giving the Ummayads amnesty after the taking of Mecca while you're at it.
After all they never wanted to accept Islam to begin with until they were brought to their knees after the taking of Mecca. They only accepted Islam just to save their lives and spare themselves.
-
Since you are the one who wrote this, seems like you already have an opinion about it. And I just want to know what is that i.e. his intention. That's all:
This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it.
-
Since you are the one who wrote this, seems like you already have an opinion about it. And I just want to know what is that i.e. his intention. That's all:
And I told you his intentions were clear through his response and actions. So what would you have done? How would you have reacted towards the Prophet s.a.w? That is all I want to know. Don't be shy.
-
And I told you his intentions were clear through his response and actions. So what would you have done? How would you have reacted towards the Prophet s.a.w? That is all I want to know. Don't be shy.
That was not an answer. What was Umar's intention? Seems like you know it.
-
Bring forward those conditions and have the discussion fairly and properly rather than coming up with bits and pieces.
Fine, here are the conditions!
https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/terms-peace-treaty
Al-Islam.org cites a source which reports that Muawiya promised Imam Hassan (ra) that "I make peace with you on the condition that after me the government will be handed over to you and I vouch for you before God".
Imam Hassan (ra) died in 670 AD and Muawiya died in 680 AD. The condition, therefore, was annulled because Muawiya promised to return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.
Now that the main condition clause you were clinging on to has been addressed and your last hope utterly refuted, can you answer our questions?
-
That was not an answer. What was Umar's intention? Seems like you know it.
He objected and further said;
"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".
Why did he say that? He must have known or had some idea of what the Prophet s.a.w is going to write.
Now dare to answer my question, what would you have done and how would you have reacted. Or just keep looking for excuses and ways and counter arguments to protect Umar.
-
He objected and further said;
"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".
I have a better scenario for you that you keep dodging. Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) saying he would not do what the Holy Prophet (saw) had instructed him.
You are talking about objecting and adding more to it, here we have an "infallible" Imam (ra) swearing by Allah (swt) that he would not do something the Holy Prophet (saw) asked him to do.
-
I have a better scenario for you that you keep dodging. Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) saying he would not do what the Holy Prophet (saw) had instructed him.
You are talking about objecting and adding more to it, here we have an "infallible" Imam (ra) swearing by Allah (swt) that he would not do something the Holy Prophet (saw) asked him to do.
See what I mean, what we're discussing is something else. All you do is bring in counter arguments one after the other. Speak about the incident of the pen and paper and Umar's reaction. Deal with this in an honest manner and then by all means we will talk about the counter argument. Build the strength and courage to be honest and fair.😊 The counter argument you're bringing in is different and separate.
-
There are two things here which are being mixed or you are seeing it as one and the same thing. Our doctrine is Imamah. We believe that Hassan was the Imam of the people appointed by Allah and introduced by the Prophet s.a.w. That's what we believe in.
We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa.
And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority. This is exactly where the misunderstanding is and is the cause of confusion.
Hassan resigned and stepped aside from the man made authority and accepted title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not the divine appointment and title of Imamah. I will explain this further Inshallah!
Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?
Do you accept the authority of this institution despite it not being divinely appointed?
If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?
If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid.
You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم).
You have said that the office of Imamate is not in lieu of caliphate but something altogether separate from it.
If that is the case why are you concerned with Saqifa and why do you attack the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates?
I look forward to your answers.
-
Oh man I can't wait for him to answer my latest questions. I've spun an elaborate web and I'm ready to trap him big time.
He will either have to eat his own words or admit his defeat.
-
"We also believe and we believe you also share this with us that Hassan was Caliphatul Muslimeen. He was and became the 5th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims. This position 'Caliphatul Muslimeen' was created and came into existence at and from Saqifa. And this position of Caliphatul Muslimeen is not and has got nothing to do with divine appointment and authority."
Mr. Iceman is totally going to regret having written these words. Just wait.
-
See what I mean, what we're discussing is something else. All you do is bring in counter arguments one after the other. Speak about the incident of the pen and paper and Umar's reaction. Deal with this in an honest manner and then by all means we will talk about the counter argument. Build the strength and courage to be honest and fair.😊 The counter argument you're bringing in is different and separate.
Wait a minute! You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion. Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?
To summarize, you are commenting on Hadith of Pen and Paper while you also pointed to Treaty of Hudaibiyah (in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate). I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it.
-
He objected and further said;
"we have the book of Allah and that is enough for us".
Why did he say that? He must have known or had some idea of what the Prophet s.a.w is going to write.
Now dare to answer my question, what would you have done and how would you have reacted. Or just keep looking for excuses and ways and counter arguments to protect Umar.
He must have known what? If, according to Twelvers, Prophet (saw) has already announced Ali as his (saw) successor to more than a hundred thousand sahabas including Umar at Ghadir Khum, don't you think your argument looks terribly stupid and moronic that Umar's intention was to stop Prophet from writing it? It has been announced to the Islamic world of that time according to Twelvers and what Umar or even anybody else could do about it?
So, what do you think of Umar's intention now?
-
Gentlemen like I said before, and you have completely failed to acknowledge, ONE AT A TIME, ONE MATTER AT A TIME AND ONE STEP AT A TIME. It's just me up against many of you. It's like putting up and dealing with a pack of wolves. 😊
-
Fine, here are the conditions!
https://www.al-islam.org/imam-hasan-and-caliphate-qurrat-ul-ain-abidiy/terms-peace-treaty
Al-Islam.org cites a source which reports that Muawiya promised Imam Hassan (ra) that "I make peace with you on the condition that after me the government will be handed over to you and I vouch for you before God".
Imam Hassan (ra) died in 670 AD and Muawiya died in 680 AD. The condition, therefore, was annulled because Muawiya promised to return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives.
Now that the main condition clause you were clinging on to has been addressed and your last hope utterly refuted, can you answer our questions?
I've read the link and here is the first matter;
'When Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) read the above letter of Muawiya, he gave a brief reply in one sentence'
:He is trying to tempt me about something which I would not hand over to him if I had an inclination towards it."
I wonder what Hassan meant by that.
"After quoting the above sentence of Imam Al-Mujtaba (as), Baladhuri writes that Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) called 'Abdullah bin Haras b. Noful, the nephew of Muawiya, and told him that he should go to his uncle (Muawiya) and tell him that'
Tell him what? Notice the next bit,
'if Muawiya was agreeable to guarantee the life and honour of the general public, then he would agree to hand over the reign to him'
Oh God, what was that,
"If Muawiya was agreeable to guarantee the life and honour of the general public"
TO GUARANTEE THE LIFE AND HONOUR OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC?
What on earth is this? Is this how bad and ruthless Muawiya was that if he doesn't have and get his way the life and honour of the general public is at stake? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the kind of character he was. Do you know now what was at stake here and who and what Hassan was dealing with and up against.
-
He must have known what? If, according to Twelvers, Prophet (saw) has already announced Ali as his (saw) successor to more than a hundred thousand sahabas including Umar at Ghadir Khum, don't you think your argument looks terribly stupid and moronic that Umar's intention was to stop Prophet from writing it? It has been announced to the Islamic world of that time according to Twelvers and what Umar or even anybody else could do about it?
So, what do you think of Umar's intention now?
"He must have known what?"
Why did he say, "the book of Allah is sufficient for us" if he didn't no or have an idea of what was going to be written? He wasn't just a Companion but also a close relative of the Prophet s.a.w. And you think the Prophet s.a.w wouldn’t have said or mentioned and discussed anything about it previously? And you still continue to protect and defend him and his actions? What would you have done, OK OUT OF LOVE? 😊
"Umar or even anybody else could do about it?"
They would have exactly done what Muawiya did. And that is they would have used their, influence, contacts, wealth and connections and resort to violence and threatening behaviour.
-
Wait a minute! You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion. Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?
To summarize, you are commenting on Hadith of Pen and Paper while you also pointed to Treaty of Hudaibiyah (in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate). I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it.
"Wait a minute! You introduced Treaty of Hudaibiyah to the discussion. Since you are passing judgment on Umar (ra) for "disobeying" the Prophet (saw), why can't you comment about the same "disobedience" shown by Imam Ali (ra) while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah?"
I'm not passing judgement on Umar, what Umar did is absolutely and exactly crystal clear. You're protecting and defending the man through and means of counter arguments. Discuss the matter of Umar and come to a conclusion then by all means discuss the other. What would you have done instead of Umar? The same thing OUT OF LOVE 😊 Come on, put the confrontational stance based on arrogance aside and be honest with yourself.
"in a failed attempt to whitewash Imam Hassan making peace with Muawiya and giving him the Caliphate)"
And don't need a whitewash. What Hassan did was courages. The life and honour of the general public was at stake. Muawiyah didn't care. If this is what strong leadership is according to you then Abubakr Al Baghdadi is in the footsteps of Muawiya. He's doing the same thing.
"I don't see why you cannot clarify the "disobedience" of Imam Ali (ra) during the drafting of Treaty of Hudaibiyah when it was you who directed us to it"
We're aren't just talking about disobedience but also prevention. Don't worry, put the matter of Ali forward fully and completely and I'll discuss that. I have no problem like you guys.
-
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was dying, there were men in the house among whom was ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Come, let me write for you a document after which you will not go astray.” ‘Umar said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is overcome with pain, and you have the Qur’an; the Book of Allah is sufficient for us. The people in the house disagreed, and they argued. Some of them said: Come close and let the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) write for you a document after which you will not go astray. Others agreed with what ‘Umar said. When their debating and argument in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) became too much, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Get up and leave.”
‘Ubayd-Allah said: Ibn ‘Abbaas used to say: What a calamity it was when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was prevented from writing that document for them because of their disagreement and arguing.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (6932) and Muslim (1637)
So can we argue with this that what ever the Prophet s.a.w wanted to write, the reason for it was so that the companions do not go astray, so since it wasn't written therefore the companions went astray?
-
For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt.
But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism", so you don't realize there's a whole world of debates out there between liberals and conservatives, Muslims vs Christians, Theists vs Atheists and so on. Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me, you don't seem to be aware of this. Have you heard about Muhammad Hijab and Adnan Rashid's latest dismembering of the Christians they debated? Have you heard about Asrar Rashid debating the Atheist last week (haven't seen it so I can't comment)? Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters.
"For the same reason "we" create websites to refute Christianity and Atheism, doesn't mean we don't think that they aren't intellectually bankrupt"
So we're intellectually bankrupt, OK. You represent the vast majority of the Muslim community globally and all the Muslim countries are governed by you, just about all. And intellectually you're at the top, so why is Islam and the Muslims getting a bad name and into all sorts of problems and mess internationally? 😊 It's your boys running around trying to bring back the Islamic Caliphate by means of violence and threatening behaviour and causing mayhem, carnage and bloodshed all over the world, so what's going so wrong and bad with you then? 😊
You speak about Christianity, Atheism and this, that and the other, tell me since you being vast majority of the Muslim Ummah what's going wrong with you that you need and are waiting for Mahdi to be born who will get rid of cruelty and injustice and fill the world with fairness and justice? Where are you going wrong where other communities don't need and aren't waiting for a saviour? 😊
"But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism"
You'll find its actually the other way around 😊
"Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me"
I don't hate Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya, you or anyone else. I never said or meant I did. Just discussing facts😊
"Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters"
Yes I have heard and watched some footage. I'd love to see them here. They're more than welcome. What i want is a one to one and not what I'm getting and that is a whole pack jumping up and down from all corners and sides and with all sorts.
-
Gentlemen like I said before, and you have completely failed to acknowledge, ONE AT A TIME, ONE MATTER AT A TIME AND ONE STEP AT A TIME. It's just me up against many of you. It's like putting up and dealing with a pack of wolves. 😊
ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂
-
ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂
And what questions were those? 😊 AND HOW MANY HAVE YOU EVER BOTHERED TO ANSWER 😆😆😆
-
ARROGANT ........just YOU ran from my questions😂😂😂
NOPE. Just being civilised and reasonable. Do you see any one to one here? Just me dealing with a pack. At least have some SHAME if you can't be HONEST 😊
-
I've read the link and here is the first matter;
'When Imam Al-Mujtaba (as) read the above letter of Muawiya, he gave a brief reply in one sentence'
:He is trying to tempt me about something which I would not hand over to him if I had an inclination towards it."
I wonder what Hassan meant by that.
You walked right into the trap. If Imam Hassan (ra) had no inclination for the Caliphate, why are Shias today so inclined to writing the Caliphate in favor of the Imams (ra) starting with Imam Ali (ra)? Imam Hassan (ra) seemed not to care about Caliphate. Why can't you - for once - follow your second "infallible" Imam (ra)? All you do is moan and groan about Saqifa.
TO GUARANTEE THE LIFE AND HONOUR OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC?
I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not uphold the life and honor of the general public. That still does not disprove my main point; Caliphate was to be returned to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son because by then, Imam Hassan (ra) had died.
In your worldview, however, Imam Hassan (ra) knew the knowledge of the unseen and what was in Muawiya's heart (nothing but deception and deceit) and yet he entrusted him with the life and honor of the Ummah. The "infallible" Imam (ra) pulled a fast-one on us, seems like!
What on earth is this? Is this how bad and ruthless Muawiya was that if he doesn't have and get his way the life and honour of the general public is at stake? Yes, absolutely. That's exactly the kind of character he was. Do you know now what was at stake here and who and what Hassan was dealing with and up against.
Fine, Muawiya was bad and ruthless. Knowing this, why would your second "infallible" Imam (ra) entrust him with the Ummah? And as per the conditions of the treaty, you cannot refute me on the correctness of Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son and not to Imam Hussain (ra). Once again, we are discussing the conditions of treaty in principle, not who was more righteous.
-
"He must have known what?"
Why did he say, "the book of Allah is sufficient for us" if he didn't no or have an idea of what was going to be written? He wasn't just a Companion but also a close relative of the Prophet s.a.w. And you think the Prophet s.a.w wouldn’t have said or mentioned and discussed anything about it previously? And you still continue to protect and defend him and his actions? What would you have done, OK OUT OF LOVE? 😊
Just because Umar said "the book of Allah is sufficient for us", Umar knew what was going to be written? Are you having "the knowledge of unseen" now knowing that Umar have an idea of what to be written? LOL.
Again, if what Prophet (saw) to write was about Ali as his successor and Umar was trying to stop it from being written, you have to admit that incident of Ghadir is never about Ali's appointment because nobody in their right frame of mind will say that Umar was trying to stop something that has become a public knowledge now.
"He must have known what?"
"Umar or even anybody else could do about it?"
They would have exactly done what Muawiya did. And that is they would have used their, influence, contacts, wealth and connections and resort to violence and threatening behaviour.
Another LOL. You are all over places. Dude, the question was what could Umar or anybody else do to something that already become a public knowledge according to Twelvers? Almost everybody already knew that Ali to succeed Prophet (saw) according to Twelvers.
-
Just because Umar said "the book of Allah is sufficient for us", Umar knew what was going to be written? Are you having "the knowledge of unseen" now knowing that Umar have an idea of what to be written? LOL.
Again, if what Prophet (saw) to write was about Ali as his successor and Umar was trying to stop it from being written, you have to admit that incident of Ghadir is never about Ali's appointment because nobody in their right frame of mind will say that Umar was trying to stop something that has become a public knowledge now.
Another LOL. You are all over places. Dude, the question was what could Umar or anybody else do to something that already become a public knowledge according to Twelvers? Almost everybody already knew that Ali to succeed Prophet (saw) according to Twelvers.
You are going in absolute circles here in a desperate attempt to protect and defend Umar. I can see the desperation in your posts. What would you have done if you were instead of Umar? Rush to get a pen and paper or start looking for excuses and cause diversion?
The Prophet s.a.w wasn't able to right anything due to the fuss Umar and his clan caused. This means the companions went astray after the demise of the Prophet s.a.w. Therefore Saqifa was the beginning of going astray.
Umar would have done exactly what Muawiya did. He would have threatened the life and honour of the general public just like Muawiya if he didn't get his way. The threats were already made to the Ansar at Saqifa if they went ahead and a leader was chosen from them.
Ali became the legitimate leader of the Muslims by becoming the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims but did Muawiya accept? 😊 NOOOOOOOOO
Get over it and start to accept reality. Put your bitterness to an end and put yourself at ease 😊
-
You walked right into the trap. If Imam Hassan (ra) had no inclination for the Caliphate, why are Shias today so inclined to writing the Caliphate in favor of the Imams (ra) starting with Imam Ali (ra)? Imam Hassan (ra) seemed not to care about Caliphate. Why can't you - for once - follow your second "infallible" Imam (ra)? All you do is moan and groan about Saqifa.
I am willing to concede that Muawiya did not uphold the life and honor of the general public. That still does not disprove my main point; Caliphate was to be returned to Imam Hassan (ra), not his blood relatives. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son because by then, Imam Hassan (ra) had died.
In your worldview, however, Imam Hassan (ra) knew the knowledge of the unseen and what was in Muawiya's heart (nothing but deception and deceit) and yet he entrusted him with the life and honor of the Ummah. The "infallible" Imam (ra) pulled a fast-one on us, seems like!
Fine, Muawiya was bad and ruthless. Knowing this, why would your second "infallible" Imam (ra) entrust him with the Ummah? And as per the conditions of the treaty, you cannot refute me on the correctness of Muawiya giving the Caliphate to his son and not to Imam Hussain (ra). Once again, we are discussing the conditions of treaty in principle, not who was more righteous.
No infact I destroy traps. None of the Imams were interested in the man made Caliphate. They were chosen to guide and govern the Muslims just as Allah chose Messengers to guide and govern. If people aren't interested then Allah doesn't care either and lets them get on with it just as the Muslims. And look at the state and affairs of the Muslims uptil today. They're in an absolute mess. This mess began and started from Saqifa. And it wasn't long before Muslims started to kill Muslims (Ref: Jamal, Safeen etc).
First of all you need to recognise and accept that Muawiya opposed the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, so that should make him a complete and absolute outcast according to the Ahle Sunnah. Because he opposed the legitimate ruler. If this was Abu Bakr or Umar instead of Ali then Muawiya would have been considered a murtad by you lot just like Malik bin Nuwayrah 😊
You see nothing wrong in Muawiya giving Caliphate to his son? Are you serious. Is Caliphate something you give? Where the hell has SHURA gone all of a sudden? This is why I consider Ahle Sunah as a belief full of twist and turns. And Hassan didn’t die. Nope, he was murdered. And this only benefited Muawiya and his cause and no one else.
-
No infact I destroy traps. None of the Imams were interested in the man made Caliphate.
Then why did Imam Ali (ra) go door-to-door begging for support so he could free the Caliphate from the hands of Abu Bakr (ra)? Why did Imam Hussain (ra) go to revolt?
They were chosen to guide and govern the Muslims just as Allah chose Messengers to guide and govern. If people aren't interested then Allah doesn't care either and lets them get on with it just as the Muslims.
And look at the state and affairs of the Muslims uptil today. They're in an absolute mess. This mess began and started from Saqifa. And it wasn't long before Muslims started to kill Muslims (Ref: Jamal, Safeen etc).
You are offering irreconcilable dichotomous positions here. On one hand, you state that Imams (ra) undertake their responsibilities with or without governance. Then, you lay blame on Saqifa where Caliphate was handed to those who are not infallible. So, in essence, you are claiming that Imams (ra) can function with or without the Caliphate and then you blame Saqifa (where Caliphate was given to Abu Bakr) as the basis for the mess. Well, how could the Imams (ra) not navigate the Ummah out of the mess? After all, that was their only job!
First of all you need to recognise and accept that Muawiya opposed the 4th rightly guided Caliph of the Muslims, so that should make him a complete and absolute outcast according to the Ahle Sunnah.
I accept this, for argument's sake. Now answer my upcoming question. You dodged it twice!
You see nothing wrong in Muawiya giving Caliphate to his son? Are you serious. Is Caliphate something you give? Where the hell has SHURA gone all of a sudden? This is why I consider Ahle Sunah as a belief full of twist and turns. And Hassan didn’t die. Nope, he was murdered. And this only benefited Muawiya and his cause and no one else.
As I said, in principle, the peace treaty was not violated. The treaty stated that Muawiya would return the Caliphate to Imam Hassan (ra). Imam Hassan died (murdered or natural death) before Muawiya so Muawiya was not restricted by the treaty terms any more. I agree that there should have been shura but Imam Hussain (ra) could have been a possible candidate, not the absolute candidate. Furthermore, shura is not accepted by you so you should not be worried about its violation. Please answer why Muawiya violated the treaty when it specifically said that Caliphate would go to Imam Hassan (ra) after Muawiya.
-
Mr. Iceman when do you plan on answering my questions?
Refer to reply #212 if you have missed them
-
So we're intellectually bankrupt, OK.
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...
You represent the vast majority of the Muslim community globally
True...
and all the Muslim countries are governed by you, just about all.
No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran. The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries. The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him. If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
And intellectually you're at the top,
Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.
so why is Islam and the Muslims getting a bad name
Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia. The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...
and into all sorts of problems and mess internationally? 😊 It's your boys running around trying to bring back the Islamic Caliphate by means of violence and threatening behaviour and causing mayhem, carnage and bloodshed all over the world, so what's going so wrong and bad with you then? 😊
Umm.. who is "my boys"? I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again. Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else. Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad? Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name? Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world? Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/
You speak about Christianity, Atheism and this, that and the other, tell me since you being vast majority of the Muslim Ummah what's going wrong with you that you need and are waiting for Mahdi to be born who will get rid of cruelty and injustice and fill the world with fairness and justice? Where are you going wrong where other communities don't need and aren't waiting for a saviour? 😊
What now? I am not waiting for the Mahdi. I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى. I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah. This is probably your most absurd point to date.
"But I understand, 12ers concentrate all their efforts on "refuting Sunnism"
You'll find its actually the other way around 😊
"Since your whole world consists of hating Abu Bakr and me"
I don't hate Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Muawiya, you or anyone else. I never said or meant I did. Just discussing facts😊
"Notice, I chose these names because they also destroy 12er debaters"
Yes I have heard and watched some footage. I'd love to see them here. They're more than welcome. What i want is a one to one and not what I'm getting and that is a whole pack jumping up and down from all corners and sides and with all sorts.
LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself. Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers? Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers. Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets. One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...
-
@iceman
Since you've gone into occultation as usual, I wanted to add this recent quote I read to show you the difference between the mainstream Muslim belief and the 12er belief regarding the Mahdi. Notice how, at the end of the day, or reliance is on Allah, not on the Mahdi, or any one else for that matter:
Dr. Ahmad Taha said:
ولو سلّمنا بفرضية أن المهدي وحده هو من يستطيع حل المشكلات، فيقيناً لن يحل المشكلات وينتصر بطريقة سحرية غامضة الأسباب، ولن يظهر المهدي إلا عندما تكون هناك الأمة التي يقاتل ويحارب بها، فهو لن يحارب وحده، وسيمضي في الطريق الذي سلكه كل الأنبياء والرسل، وستجري عليه سنن الله في الكون كما تجري على كل البشر.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Mahdi is the only one who could solve our problems, he will most certainly not solve our problems and lead us to victory through some magically obscure means. The Mahdi will not appear until there is an Ummah at his disposal ready to wage war and fight with him. He will not wage war on his own. He will take the path which all the prophets and messengers took and the natural laws of the universe will apply to him as they do to all human beings.
-
@iceman
Since you've gone into occultation as usual, I wanted to add this recent quote I read to show you the difference between the mainstream Muslim belief and the 12er belief regarding the Mahdi. Notice how, at the end of the day, or reliance is on Allah, not on the Mahdi, or any one else for that matter:
"Since you've gone into occultation as usual"
Be it taunts or tantrums, absurd attitude or insulting remarks, I'm use to this from your side. 😊 No sweat here, carry on as usual. Well what can I say, if you're going to continue as MR RIGHT and MR TRUTH and with such attitude and beahaviour then it's not much of discussion then, is it?
-
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...
True...
No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran. The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries. The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him. If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.
Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia. The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...
Umm.. who is "my boys"? I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again. Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else. Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad? Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name? Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world? Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/
What now? I am not waiting for the Mahdi. I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى. I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah. This is probably your most absurd point to date.
LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself. Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers? Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers. Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets. One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well..."
😊 Well if that was the case then this would be a very easy and simple matter. And it isn't because if it was then why the hell are your kind spending so much money, time, effort and commitment in dealing with us and our ideology. ☺
And you're struggling with it. You are so desperate that you have to assemble into a pack to deal with just only one of us. You can't have a one to one or come one at a time, you question but refuse to answer, you only comment on what suits you and then we have twist and turns. What I mean by 'you' is the pack.
"Umm.. who is "my boys"? I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again"
Your focus is 100% on us. I've never seen any thread on them based on crticisism and condemnation from any of you. 😊 Care to start a thread on them when you have some free time from chasing us around all over the place 😀
"Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you"
We don't use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have our demands met and cause bloodshed and mayhem to bring about the Islamic Caliphate 😀
The only deviants are you and them. The only difference is that you do it verbally and they do it practically 😀 You do it with verbal abuse and they do it with physical abuse 😀 Otherwise you are of the same kind and nature. You share same ideology but differ in how you do it.
"Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad? Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?
I'm in no support of any tyrant or any leader who uses heavy handed tactics on the people and public, since the death of the Prophet s.a.w and onwards. Would you share the same thought? 😊
And you speak about Iran, since the Islamic revolution in Iran, can you be honest and truthful that the international community has been fair and just with Iran, its economy and its people? Iran has been isolated and intimidated from day one not just by the western community but also by the Muslim community for it being majority Shia governed 😊
-
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well...
True...
No true, in fact, the only "Islamic" country around today is Iran. The rest are openly secular, or hide behind the guise of religion to suppress the masses, as is in the case of the Gulf Countries. The closest thing we had in the past 150 years or so has been Mursi, and we all know what happened with him. If you want me to accept Erdogan then I guess I will for the sake of argument.
Not only that, but we in fact the only people representing Islam at all, intellectually, academically, practically, politically, etc.
Most commentators would blame a little something called Islamophobia. The same time of fear mongering and hatred that you cast over 1.5 billion Muslims as we can see in what you are about to say...
Umm.. who is "my boys"? I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again. Rather, I free myself of all of the UNISLAMIC and oppressive groups, whether they are Dawaish or any one else. Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad? Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name? Do you think that Iran has a good reputation with the rest of the world? Honestly, everything you write is so counterproductive to your point that I'm not ever sure you think anything you write through.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/11/global-views-of-iran-overwhelmingly-negative/
What now? I am not waiting for the Mahdi. I am relying on Allah سبحانه وتعالى. I don't even think the belief in the Mahdi is from the foundations of the deen, or the foundations of Ahl as-Sunnah. This is probably your most absurd point to date.
LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself. Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers? Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers. Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets. One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel...
"LOL, the rest of this post is you contradicting yourself. Are we the ones on top of the Muslim world intellectually and refuting atheists and Christians, or are we only concentrating all of our efforts on the 12ers? Honestly, you can't possibly live in such a bubble that you think the Muslim world puts even 5% of its effort in refuting 12ers. Look at how little traffic this and other anti-12er criticism gets. One video of Muhammad Hijab whooping David White gets WAY more attention than the entire Anti-Majos or Sunni Defense channel..."
Vast majority of you, be it the Saudis or other Arabs or non Arabs, are spending so much time, effort and money to try and stop Shiaism from spreading. Take a look at this site and there are many other sites as such. We also have various groups, organisations and institutions working against Shiaism. Read history and see the propaganda against Shias from day one. It's been a constant struggle for anti Shias from the very start.
And you keep boasting about Saqifa, I've said this before that only the heads of the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to SELECT THEIR OWN LEADER. I wonder why. And only three Muhajir quietly and secretly rushed to Saqifa to stop them. Why didn't they allow them (Ansar) to select a leader and rally around and support them.😊
Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or assembly, it wasn't a public event where all parties concerned or all heads of Muslim tribes and areas, all important and concerned individuals and personalities gathered/assembled to choose and select a leader, to name and appoint the successor to Muhammad s.a.w 😊
-
Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?
Do you accept the authority of this institution despite it not being divinely appointed?
If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?
If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid.
You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم).
You have said that the office of Imamate is not in lieu of caliphate but something altogether separate from it.
If that is the case why are you concerned with Saqifa and why do you attack the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates?
I look forward to your answers.
Allow me to explain. Please pay attention and acknowledge.
"Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?"
You have two things here, 1, Religion (Deen). 2, World (Dunya). To break it down further you have religious authority, which is divine authority as well as authority chosen by election selection of the people. These are two different authorities.
For example Muhammad s.a.w was a Messenger and Prophet. He was divinely appointed. Why didn't the Muslims just accept and keep him as a religious guide and gather to elect and select a leader to run the world affairs? Ever thought of that?
When it comes to Muhammad s.a.w he is the religious leader as well as looking after the affairs of the Muslims and the world. But after Muhammad s.a.w religion and religious authority is restricted to only Muhammad s.a.w and the Qur'an and we need to elect and select someone else to run the affairs of the Muslims and the world?
Point 2, obviously Muhammad s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him because either there was no need to or he just simply didn't bother. I wonder why.
After the demise of Muhammad s.a.w there was no public gathering or assembly to elect and select to name and appoint someone to govern. This is another argument for another day.
Now the answer to your question,
NO we do not accept the authority of "Caliphatul Muslimeen' as a religious authority because we believe in divine authority and a divine leader just like Muhammad s.a.w.
But we have to accept and consider that Muslims took a different turn and developed a man made and selected authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen. In history whether one accepts or not likes or not the title and authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen was created and started.
-
"If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?"
First of all we need to understand what Imamah is. A messengers job is to deliver and spread the message. The Imams job is to protect and defend that message.
We need to acknowledge that the message wasn't under threat by Muawiya or his reign othewise Hassan's stance would have been different. The same thing is that what happened at Saqifa and how the coincidental and immature decision was made and forced upon people didn't threaten the message otherwise Ali's stance would have been different.
However the message was at threat during the reign of Yazeed that's why the people of Kufa wrote to Hussain and that is why Hussain's stance was different. It's about the message and not about the title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen. But for Abu Bakr, Umar, Muawiya etc it was about the title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not about the message.
YES we do recognise that Hassan was the 5th Caliph of the Muslims. That's what history says and tells you. According to history Yazeed was the 7th Caliph of the Muslims whether you like it or not.
"If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid."
NO I haven't. There is no contradiction when you have Deen and Duniya. Is there a contradiction when you say and mention Deen and Duniya? NO there isn't. There is also no contradiction when you mention religious authority and authority of the people.
"You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم)."
😊 Ah, LEGITIMACY is totally a different thing. What is the meaning of legitimacy?
-
@iceman
Ma sha Allah, you have at least answered my questions which was more than I was expecting. Briefly, I will say here that despite having answered the questions, your answers reveal how you are playing games and have departed from the position of your own Twelver madhhab:
Allow me to explain. Please pay attention and acknowledge.
"Does this mean you accept the authority of the Khalifat ul Muslimeen, I mean the institution which was created from Saqifa?"
You have two things here, 1, Religion (Deen). 2, World (Dunya). To break it down further you have religious authority, which is divine authority as well as authority chosen by election selection of the people. These are two different authorities.
This right here is the standard Sunni position. We recognize a distinction between religious and secular authority. Religious authority is wielded by Prophets alone, while secular authority may be exercised by figures that have no religious authority (i.e. the caliphs). A Prophet may also exercise secular authority but that is not always necessary.
Now you have departed from the Twelver madhhab which says that the exercising of all authority such as the government is the sole right of the Infallibles, meaning the Prophet and the 12 Imams. They make no distinction between religious and secular authority.
Otherwise, why do all the Shia object to the secular authority of sayyidina Abi Bakr RA as the Prophet's first caliph, when he only exercised secular authority and not religious authority, nor did he ever claim his authority is essentially religious?
Why could not the Shia be content with saying that their madhhab is that sayyidina Ali RA was the Imam in Religion and Abu Bakr RA the caliph in secular authority over the Ummah and that the latter was valid?
When they invalidate the latter it means they do not recognize a distinction between religious and secular authority.
If you say that sayyidina Ali RA was indeed the Imam in Religion but he should have also been the caliph of secular authority because he was most qualified for the task and not because he had a religious divine authority to be the caliph of secular authority, then you have departed from the Twelver madhhab's position. The Twelvers say that sayyidina Ali RA had the divine authority to be the caliph of the Muslims, meaning rule them in the dunya not simply the Deen.
For example Muhammad s.a.w was a Messenger and Prophet. He was divinely appointed. Why didn't the Muslims just accept and keep him as a religious guide and gather to elect and select a leader to run the world affairs? Ever thought of that?
What do you think the people of Medina did? Even the Jews of Medina accepted Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as their ruler, chief and judge but in dunya not deen. In addition to being a Prophet of God, sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was in a position of judge over Medina. That is why the Jews would come to him to settle their legal disputes and refer to him for judgment. They agreed to the Charter of Medina which was like a constitution describing the political setup of Medina. The Jews accepted him as a judge but not as a Prophet. He صلى الله عليه وسلم became the judge and ruler of Medina by the agreement of the people of that town, both Muslim (Ansar) and non-Muslim (Jewish clans).
In fact, at times the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم even delegated this secular authority of his to others. For example, the appointment of sayyidina Saad b. Muadh رضى الله عنه to act as judge in the matter of the treason of Bani Qurayza. Before giving his judgment, sayyidina Saad b. Muadh even confirmed that the Prophet too would be bound by his judgment, because it was a secular matter not a matter of Deen. When sayyidina Saad b. Muadh arrived, the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم stood up and instructed the Ansar to stand up قُومُوا إِلَى سَيِّدِكُمْ "Stand up for your Master". This was to acknowledge Saad b. Muadh's secular authority.
Now how can a Prophet delegate religious authority to one of his companions, that too someone whom you don't consider to be Ma'sum? It was obviously the delegation of secular authority which is not divinely appointed.
When it comes to Muhammad s.a.w he is the religious leader as well as looking after the affairs of the Muslims and the world. But after Muhammad s.a.w religion and religious authority is restricted to only Muhammad s.a.w and the Qur'an and we need to elect and select someone else to run the affairs of the Muslims and the world?
Now I've answered this point. The secular authority of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم was not divinely appointed. Even the Jews of Medina acknowledged his secular authority and treated him as a judge to settle their legal disputes. The people of Medina agreed to have him as their secular leader, he was not divinely appointed to that position.
Point 2, obviously Muhammad s.a.w didn't name and appoint anyone to govern after him because either there was no need to or he just simply didn't bother. I wonder why.
Just as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم attained his position of judge and ruler over Medina by the agreement of her people, he expected his own Sahaba to consult and elect a leader among themselves, hence why he never designated any successor, though of course there are Hadith where he predicted who would succeed him and where he hinted at the fact that Abu Bakr RA should succeed him, hence why he appointed him to lead the prayers in his final illness.
Now the answer to your question,
NO we do not accept the authority of "Caliphatul Muslimeen' as a religious authority because we believe in divine authority and a divine leader just like Muhammad s.a.w.
Neither do we. We believe that religious authority has ceased in the person of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. You acknowledge that the institution of Khilafa is a secular institution and does not wield religious authority. The only thing is that you are acknowledging a parallel institution, which you consider divinely appointed, namely Imamate.
According to you, this divinely appointed institution can exist side by side with the secular caliphate. My question is do you consider the caliphate as a secular institution valid? If you say yes you have departed from the Twelver madhhab. If you say no, then you have to answer why historically your Imams (Ali, Hasan and Hussain رضى الله عنهم) did not revolt against the caliphate. You also have to answer why Ali and Hasan رضى الله عنهما accepted the office of caliphate, and why sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه subsequently resigned from that institution knowing full well it would then be occupied by Mu'awiya رضى الله عنه?
But we have to accept and consider that Muslims took a different turn and developed a man made and selected authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen. In history whether one accepts or not likes or not the title and authority of Caliphatul Muslimeen was created and started.
The point is you say it is wrong and an error for the Muslims to have done this. By saying so, you automatically posit that this institution must be divinely appointed.
-
"If you say no, then how was it valid for sayyidina Hasan RA to have this office? Do you recognize the authority of sayyidina Hasan RA as the fifth caliph?"
First of all we need to understand what Imamah is. A messengers job is to deliver and spread the message. The Imams job is to protect and defend that message.
We need to acknowledge that the message wasn't under threat by Muawiya or his reign
"We need to acknowledge that the message wasn't under threat by Muawiya or his reign" <<golden words
That is in fact the position of Ahlus Sunnah. It seems you have departed considerably from the Twelver madhhab.
The Twelvers curse Muawiya and say he was a usurper like Abi Bakr and Umar رضى الله عنهما. But you have said that none of these gentlemen threatened the message of Islam.
Then in your view, were the wars of sayyidina Ali RA wars for secular power and not religious in nature?
othewise Hassan's stance would have been different. The same thing is that what happened at Saqifa and how the coincidental and immature decision was made and forced upon people didn't threaten the message otherwise Ali's stance would have been different.
ditto
But for Abu Bakr, Umar, Muawiya etc it was about the title and position of Caliphatul Muslimeen and not about the message.
Exactly. So again, you have departed from the Twelver madhhab. Otherwise you are admitting it is a dispute over secular authority and a dispute over Dunya not Deen.
YES we do recognise that Hassan was the 5th Caliph of the Muslims. That's what history says and tells you. According to history Yazeed was the 7th Caliph of the Muslims whether you like it or not.
Now we come to the point. It is true that historically Yazid was the ruler of the Muslims. But most Sunnis and Shia agree that his rule was invalid, he was a usurper and it was correct to revolt against him, as sayyidina Husayn and Ibn Zubayr رضى الله عنهم did. But you have compared it to the caliphate of Hasan رضى الله عنه. So are you saying the caliphate of Hasan was just a historical reality but it has no validity because the caliphate is a manmade institution and a bid'a according to you? Or do you say Hasan RA was right to accept the caliphate because it was his right anyways.
The Twelvers say that Hasan and Ali RA were justified in accepting the caliphate based on Shura because it was their right anyways to rule by divine appointment. But now you are saying the entire institution is manmade yet as long as it doesnt oppose the Message it is a valid institution?
You're statements are full of confusion and self-contradiction.
"If you say yes, then you have contradicted your own principle that any office which is not divinely appointed is invalid."
NO I haven't. There is no contradiction when you have Deen and Duniya. Is there a contradiction when you say and mention Deen and Duniya? NO there isn't. There is also no contradiction when you mention religious authority and authority of the people.
Answer this: is the authority in Dunya of the caliphate created by Saqifa valid or invalid? Simple question.
If it is invalid (as per Twelver madhhab) why did Ali and Hasan RA themselves accept their nomination to that invalid office?
If it is valid, why do you attack Saqifa and attack Sunnism?
"You will also have to recognize the legitimacy of the 3 caliphates (Abu Bakr's, Umar's and Uthman's رضى الله عنهم)."
😊 Ah, LEGITIMACY is totally a different thing. What is the meaning of legitimacy?
Legitimacy, i.e. validity. For example, is the authority of Bashar al-Assad over Syria legitimate according to you?
If no, then, as per the orthodox Twelver madhhab, that is because the authority to rule people cannot be valid unless it is exercised by an Infallible, or (according to Wilayat al-Faqih) a deputy who rules in the name of an infallible.
If yes, then why isn't the caliphate created by Saqifa not legitimate and valid also? If it is valid, then what is your objection to Saqifa and Sunnism?
-
No. It's an exaggerated unsubstituted Rafidi claim, it's quite the opposite:
https://gift2shias.com/2013/08/18/most-sahaba-did-not-participated-in-the-fitnah-jamalsiffeen/
-
"Since you've gone into occultation as usual"
Be it taunts or tantrums, absurd attitude or insulting remarks, I'm use to this from your side. 😊 No sweat here, carry on as usual. Well what can I say, if you're going to continue as MR RIGHT and MR TRUTH and with such attitude and beahaviour then it's not much of discussion then, is it?
As far as me insulting with "absurd attitude" (lol what?) it is because you have shown time and time again that you are a disrespectful person. I tried to chalk up your disrespect to other members out of your feeling of defensiveness, but when I tried to come at you with respect, you came back at me with smiley faces and insults. As far as this being "not much of a discussion"; I'm amazed you have the gall to say such a thing while simultaneously quoting my post and not addressing the content! How you can even think any one can take you seriously after that is mind-boggling.
Agree, what you are about to say not only shows that, but it also shows you are morally bankrupt as well..."
😊 Well if that was the case then this would be a very easy and simple matter. And it isn't because if it was then why the hell are your kind spending so much money, time, effort and commitment in dealing with us and our ideology. ☺
LOL, if you think I've spent any money on refuting 12erism, then you are as delusional as I initially thought. If you think the brothers pay $9.95 on refuting 12erism is "spending so much money" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
And you're struggling with it. You are so desperate that you have to assemble into a pack to deal with just only one of us. You can't have a one to one or come one at a time, you question but refuse to answer, you only comment on what suits you and then we have twist and turns. What I mean by 'you' is the pack.
That's just absurdity on your part. YOU are the one that never addresses anything said to you. When it was shown you had NO IDEA the grading of the hadeeth we were discussing nor what al-Kulayni and other 12er scholars thought of the hadeeth, you just simply still insisted that the hadeeth was weak and that what "you guys" believe. When you quoted my previous post, you just simply ignored all of the content and moved forward. Lets not forget your hilarious dodging and weaving on the Mut'ah thread.
As far as more than one person refuting you, you are the only 12er that ever stuck around. Do you think that when I post on Shiachat, I get responses to me from one person or do you think the whole site gangs up on me? When I post refuting khawarij on Ummah forum, do you think only one person refutes me or does the whole site gang up on me? I can't believe something like this needs to be explained to you...
"Umm.. who is "my boys"? I consider the Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you as I've told you time and time again"
Your focus is 100% on us. I've never seen any thread on them based on crticisism and condemnation from any of you. 😊 Care to start a thread on them when you have some free time from chasing us around all over the place 😀
My focus is 100% on 12ers because this "TwelverShia.net"; you can't possibly be this daft. We have had this conversation multiple times and yet you keep saying "your focus is 100% on us", if that's not avoiding a discussion then I don't know what is. Yet despite this absurd objection, look, even on this site I refuted the khawarij:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/did-ibn-taymiyyah-declare-takfir-again-the-12er-shia/
I wonder if you have in your life ever defended non-12ers like I did to 12ers in the post. والله if you are just you will take back what you said about me. Sad thing is, I know you will just ignore it and move on, continuing in your delusion that I am 100% focused on 12ers.
"Dawaish to be even bigger deviants than you"
We don't use means of violence and threatening behaviour just to have our demands met and cause bloodshed and mayhem to bring about the Islamic Caliphate 😀
You don't, you do it to set up the Safavid empire and defend Iran and prop up Syria. That's why you guys are two sides of the same coin, as long as there are are 12ers and Najdis around, expect the rest of us Muslims to be oppressed and killed by you. Will you address this? Of course not, you will just ignore it and continue living your delusion.
The only deviants are you and them. The only difference is that you do it verbally and they do it practically 😀 You do it with verbal abuse and they do it with physical abuse 😀 Otherwise you are of the same kind and nature. You share same ideology but differ in how you do it.
I understand that my refutations are so devastating that they feel like terrorism to you; but rest assured, criticism and terrorism are not one in the same. I don't share an ideology with them. You share an ideology with them in your takfeer and hatred of the rest of the Ummah. Will you address this? Obviously not... you'll just quote it and go off an another tangent.
"Do you do the same with Bashar alAssad? Is your support of that tyrant giving Islam a good name?
I'm in no support of any tyrant or any leader who uses heavy handed tactics on the people and public, since the death of the Prophet s.a.w and onwards. Would you share the same thought? 😊
Umm... yes I do since I denounce opressive un-Islamic regimes like Saudi, Iran and Syria and I do so by name. Lets see you do the same...
And you speak about Iran, since the Islamic revolution in Iran, can you be honest and truthful that the international community has been fair and just with Iran, its economy and its people? Iran has been isolated and intimidated from day one not just by the western community but also by the Muslim community for it being majority Shia governed 😊
But that was my initial point wasn't it? I agree, the reason Islam in general, and certain places like Iran in specific, have negative connotations throughout the world has been due to propaganda and a certain thing called Islamphobia, something you are very keen on spreading. Despite my ideological differences with Iran, I actually respect the people and even the government, something I've said to you in the past. In fact, I've also said to you that I favor Iran these days to Saudi. Yet, you are unfortunately too sectarian to even listen to anything anyone says to you, هداك الله.
Vast majority of you, be it the Saudis or other Arabs or non Arabs, are spending so much time, effort and money to try and stop Shiaism from spreading. Take a look at this site and there are many other sites as such. We also have various groups, organisations and institutions working against Shiaism. Read history and see the propaganda against Shias from day one. It's been a constant struggle for anti Shias from the very start.
Ridiculous like all of your other claims, they are spending WAY more energy attempting to stop ANY Islamic movement they deem against their SECULAR regimes. I admit wholeheartedly that the the Saudis wrongly imprison 12ers clerics and oppress them, but they do that ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE when dealing with other groups. Do you have any idea how many clerics, thinkers, activists and journalists the Saudis have imprisoned and killed? Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us?
And you keep boasting about Saqifa, I've said this before that only the heads of the Ansar gathered in Saqifa to SELECT THEIR OWN LEADER. I wonder why. And only three Muhajir quietly and secretly rushed to Saqifa to stop them. Why didn't they allow them (Ansar) to select a leader and rally around and support them.😊
Umm.. the reasoning was because the majority of the Arabs would not have accepted an Ansari leader, its literally written in the reports?...
Saqifa wasn't a public gathering or assembly, it wasn't a public event where all parties concerned or all heads of Muslim tribes and areas, all important and concerned individuals and personalities gathered/assembled to choose and select a leader, to name and appoint the successor to Muhammad s.a.w 😊
No, it was a mistake by the Ansars that الحمدلله Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaydah rectified may Allah shower his mercy upon them and be please with them. الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله for their foresight!
At this point, I stop wasting my time... I guarantee you will not address anything and just move on.
However, P.S. you do know that overusing emojis like you do shows psychological problems? Read this
https://www.2knowmyself.com/Why_some_people_use_too_many_emojis
Not only do psychologists say that people who use too many emojis "are overly emotional" as they say "The more emotionally provoked a person is the more likely they are going to use emojis to express themselves", as well as "too sensitive: People who get emotionally provoked easily are more likely to be sensitive. Emotional sensitivity can in many cases be an exaggerated emotional reaction to a normal stimuli." They even go on to say "They have less testosterone!" So try to imagine how people react to your posts when it looks like it is written by an over emotional 12 year old girl.
-
As far as me insulting with "absurd attitude" (lol what?) it is because you have shown time and time again that you are a disrespectful person. I tried to chalk up your disrespect to other members out of your feeling of defensiveness, but when I tried to come at you with respect, you came back at me with smiley faces and insults. As far as this being "not much of a discussion"; I'm amazed you have the gall to say such a thing while simultaneously quoting my post and not addressing the content! How you can even think any one can take you seriously after that is mind-boggling.
LOL, if you think I've spent any money on refuting 12erism, then you are as delusional as I initially thought. If you think the brothers pay $9.95 on refuting 12erism is "spending so much money" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
That's just absurdity on your part. YOU are the one that never addresses anything said to you. When it was shown you had NO IDEA the grading of the hadeeth we were discussing nor what al-Kulayni and other 12er scholars thought of the hadeeth, you just simply still insisted that the hadeeth was weak and that what "you guys" believe. When you quoted my previous post, you just simply ignored all of the content and moved forward. Lets not forget your hilarious dodging and weaving on the Mut'ah thread.
As far as more than one person refuting you, you are the only 12er that ever stuck around. Do you think that when I post on Shiachat, I get responses to me from one person or do you think the whole site gangs up on me? When I post refuting khawarij on Ummah forum, do you think only one person refutes me or does the whole site gang up on me? I can't believe something like this needs to be explained to you...
My focus is 100% on 12ers because this "TwelverShia.net"; you can't possibly be this daft. We have had this conversation multiple times and yet you keep saying "your focus is 100% on us", if that's not avoiding a discussion then I don't know what is. Yet despite this absurd objection, look, even on this site I refuted the khawarij:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/did-ibn-taymiyyah-declare-takfir-again-the-12er-shia/
I wonder if you have in your life ever defended non-12ers like I did to 12ers in the post. والله if you are just you will take back what you said about me. Sad thing is, I know you will just ignore it and move on, continuing in your delusion that I am 100% focused on 12ers.
You don't, you do it to set up the Safavid empire and defend Iran and prop up Syria. That's why you guys are two sides of the same coin, as long as there are are 12ers and Najdis around, expect the rest of us Muslims to be oppressed and killed by you. Will you address this? Of course not, you will just ignore it and continue living your delusion.
I understand that my refutations are so devastating that they feel like terrorism to you; but rest assured, criticism and terrorism are not one in the same. I don't share an ideology with them. You share an ideology with them in your takfeer and hatred of the rest of the Ummah. Will you address this? Obviously not... you'll just quote it and go off an another tangent.
Umm... yes I do since I denounce opressive un-Islamic regimes like Saudi, Iran and Syria and I do so by name. Lets see you do the same...
But that was my initial point wasn't it? I agree, the reason Islam in general, and certain places like Iran in specific, have negative connotations throughout the world has been due to propaganda and a certain thing called Islamphobia, something you are very keen on spreading. Despite my ideological differences with Iran, I actually respect the people and even the government, something I've said to you in the past. In fact, I've also said to you that I favor Iran these days to Saudi. Yet, you are unfortunately too sectarian to even listen to anything anyone says to you, هداك الله.
Ridiculous like all of your other claims, they are spending WAY more energy attempting to stop ANY Islamic movement they deem against their SECULAR regimes. I admit wholeheartedly that the the Saudis wrongly imprison 12ers clerics and oppress them, but they do that ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE when dealing with other groups. Do you have any idea how many clerics, thinkers, activists and journalists the Saudis have imprisoned and killed? Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us?
Umm.. the reasoning was because the majority of the Arabs would not have accepted an Ansari leader, its literally written in the reports?...
No, it was a mistake by the Ansars that الحمدلله Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaydah rectified may Allah shower his mercy upon them and be please with them. الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله for their foresight!
At this point, I stop wasting my time... I guarantee you will not address anything and just move on.
However, P.S. you do know that overusing emojis like you do shows psychological problems? Read this
https://www.2knowmyself.com/Why_some_people_use_too_many_emojis
Not only do psychologists say that people who use too many emojis "are overly emotional" as they say "The more emotionally provoked a person is the more likely they are going to use emojis to express themselves", as well as "too sensitive: People who get emotionally provoked easily are more likely to be sensitive. Emotional sensitivity can in many cases be an exaggerated emotional reaction to a normal stimuli." They even go on to say "They have less testosterone!" So try to imagine how people react to your posts when it looks like it is written by an over emotional 12 year old girl.
Your post is full of emotional tantrums and outbursts. I don't know where to begin. Why do you take things personally. This is something I don't understand. I address absolutely everything that is put forward to me. So I don't know why I am accused of dodging and avoiding when the thread, be it which ever, is there to be seen. Once again you're the judge, the jury and the executioner. Now if you can just cut the crap out and come and bring it one at a time. What haven't I addressed, bring it forward one at a time. Just keep the nonsense out of it. I don't see any Shia coming on and saying "he hasn't answered this or addressed that so allow me to respond" then it would make sense. You accusing me of being like an over emotional 12 year old girl, come on man, I suggest you read mythbuster's posts.
"As far as me insulting with "absurd attitude" (lol what?) it is because you have shown time and time again that you are a disrespectful person"
What a load of nonsense. Disrespectful person? Do you even bother to read the crap against me just because I'm a Shia? Wake up man. What world are you living in. Have you seen the response I get, the hatred and grudge lurking in those posts?
"you came back at me with smiley faces and insults"
Really. Have you seen the response that I get especially from mythbuster and Muslim 720. That's where the smiley faces and insults are. Or do they respond normally? Have I seen a bloody word from you or any of the admins and mods regarding this? No. Why? Because I'm a Shia. Please don't give me examples from Shiachat because your behaviour lies with you.
-
As far as me insulting with "absurd attitude" (lol what?) it is because you have shown time and time again that you are a disrespectful person. I tried to chalk up your disrespect to other members out of your feeling of defensiveness, but when I tried to come at you with respect, you came back at me with smiley faces and insults. As far as this being "not much of a discussion"; I'm amazed you have the gall to say such a thing while simultaneously quoting my post and not addressing the content! How you can even think any one can take you seriously after that is mind-boggling.
LOL, if you think I've spent any money on refuting 12erism, then you are as delusional as I initially thought. If you think the brothers pay $9.95 on refuting 12erism is "spending so much money" then I'm not sure what to tell you.
That's just absurdity on your part. YOU are the one that never addresses anything said to you. When it was shown you had NO IDEA the grading of the hadeeth we were discussing nor what al-Kulayni and other 12er scholars thought of the hadeeth, you just simply still insisted that the hadeeth was weak and that what "you guys" believe. When you quoted my previous post, you just simply ignored all of the content and moved forward. Lets not forget your hilarious dodging and weaving on the Mut'ah thread.
As far as more than one person refuting you, you are the only 12er that ever stuck around. Do you think that when I post on Shiachat, I get responses to me from one person or do you think the whole site gangs up on me? When I post refuting khawarij on Ummah forum, do you think only one person refutes me or does the whole site gang up on me? I can't believe something like this needs to be explained to you...
My focus is 100% on 12ers because this "TwelverShia.net"; you can't possibly be this daft. We have had this conversation multiple times and yet you keep saying "your focus is 100% on us", if that's not avoiding a discussion then I don't know what is. Yet despite this absurd objection, look, even on this site I refuted the khawarij:
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/did-ibn-taymiyyah-declare-takfir-again-the-12er-shia/
I wonder if you have in your life ever defended non-12ers like I did to 12ers in the post. والله if you are just you will take back what you said about me. Sad thing is, I know you will just ignore it and move on, continuing in your delusion that I am 100% focused on 12ers.
You don't, you do it to set up the Safavid empire and defend Iran and prop up Syria. That's why you guys are two sides of the same coin, as long as there are are 12ers and Najdis around, expect the rest of us Muslims to be oppressed and killed by you. Will you address this? Of course not, you will just ignore it and continue living your delusion.
I understand that my refutations are so devastating that they feel like terrorism to you; but rest assured, criticism and terrorism are not one in the same. I don't share an ideology with them. You share an ideology with them in your takfeer and hatred of the rest of the Ummah. Will you address this? Obviously not... you'll just quote it and go off an another tangent.
Umm... yes I do since I denounce opressive un-Islamic regimes like Saudi, Iran and Syria and I do so by name. Lets see you do the same...
But that was my initial point wasn't it? I agree, the reason Islam in general, and certain places like Iran in specific, have negative connotations throughout the world has been due to propaganda and a certain thing called Islamphobia, something you are very keen on spreading. Despite my ideological differences with Iran, I actually respect the people and even the government, something I've said to you in the past. In fact, I've also said to you that I favor Iran these days to Saudi. Yet, you are unfortunately too sectarian to even listen to anything anyone says to you, هداك الله.
Ridiculous like all of your other claims, they are spending WAY more energy attempting to stop ANY Islamic movement they deem against their SECULAR regimes. I admit wholeheartedly that the the Saudis wrongly imprison 12ers clerics and oppress them, but they do that ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE when dealing with other groups. Do you have any idea how many clerics, thinkers, activists and journalists the Saudis have imprisoned and killed? Do you live on the same planet as the rest of us?
Umm.. the reasoning was because the majority of the Arabs would not have accepted an Ansari leader, its literally written in the reports?...
No, it was a mistake by the Ansars that الحمدلله Abu Bakr, Omar and Abu Ubaydah rectified may Allah shower his mercy upon them and be please with them. الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله ثم الحمدلله for their foresight!
At this point, I stop wasting my time... I guarantee you will not address anything and just move on.
However, P.S. you do know that overusing emojis like you do shows psychological problems? Read this
https://www.2knowmyself.com/Why_some_people_use_too_many_emojis
Not only do psychologists say that people who use too many emojis "are overly emotional" as they say "The more emotionally provoked a person is the more likely they are going to use emojis to express themselves", as well as "too sensitive: People who get emotionally provoked easily are more likely to be sensitive. Emotional sensitivity can in many cases be an exaggerated emotional reaction to a normal stimuli." They even go on to say "They have less testosterone!" So try to imagine how people react to your posts when it looks like it is written by an over emotional 12 year old girl.
Listen, whether emotionally or not or which ever way, I can't be provoked otherwise I would have been banned long ago for reacting and responding to something just because I'm a Shia. As far as others are concerned I answer with sense and logic and reality and facts, with information and intellectually. Let me give you an example, if you ask to get to know then you won't get carried away but prople here ask to catch me out. When they don't or can't get their way then they get emotional and accuse me of provoking them.
The Mut'ah thread, I answered and addressed absolutely everything in depth and in great detail. If you're not satisfied or think I haven't answered or addressed something then please do bring it forward and point it out rather than making a circus over it just to gain weight. The propaganda against Shiaism and how Shias have been treated and are being treated history is there. You and I both know.
"At this point, I stop wasting my time... I guarantee you will not address anything and just move on"
You can try me again and I will answer and address absolutely everything in depth again. I don't have psychological problems because I don't hate or hold grudge. I'm not a propagandist or an anti this or that.
"Umm.. the reasoning was because the majority of the Arabs would not have accepted an Ansari leader, its literally written in the reports?..."
A lot of things are written and history has been distorted by leaders and those in authority among them to make themselves look right and good. How do you know majority of the Arabs would accept a leader from the Ansar? And where does your shura go when objections and restrictions where lurking from the start just by only and only three Muhajir?
Yes I do live on the same planet but you need to question others, be it members, mods or admins, why they keep banging on about Iran, Syria and Iraq only. I'll tell you why, because of Shiaism.
"Umm... yes I do since I denounce opressive un-Islamic regimes like Saudi, Iran and Syria and I do so by name. Lets see you do the same..."
I do the same. But the difference is I don't see any website as such banging on about any Sunni regime like they bang on about Iran, Iraq and Syria.
"You share an ideology with them in your takfeer and hatred of the rest of the Ummah"
We don't, otherwise we would get along with them and not be their prime concern and target.